[gwnn]

For example

http://www.thelocal.se/19392/20090512/

What do you think of this?

Of course it might be difficult to determine whether a given abortion was or was not based on gender - is this maybe an argument to make them 100% legal?

(I'm against abortion and death penalty so for me this is a wtp but I wonder what pro choice people think about this.)

[helene_t]

I think it is impractical if doctors have to find out the reason why a woman wants an abortion. Better to ban sex tests, but that would just create a booming market for illegal sex tests.

In countries where sex-based abortion threatens to create a huge male surplus, something has to be done, though. Make abortion subject to some objective criterion, say severe genetic defects.

In Sweden I am afraid not much can be done about it other than just discourage it.

[hrothgar]

No objection on this part (provided that the abortion is performed during the first trimester, maybe a bit longer)

I'm pro choice
I think that women should be allowed early term abortions for whatever reason they might choose.

[OleBerg]

Hard to discuss without discussing abortion in general.

The best solution would be to make a world, where a pregnancy is always a happy occasion. That has unfortunately not been done so far. So we weigh the pro's and con's, and some, like me, come to the pro-choice conclusion.

From this follows also, that I believe discussions about abortions should be pragmatic. Nothing is provably right or wrong. We have to rely on our morals end ethics.

So what criterions should be set for choice. In my opinion no other that the girl/woman is in a normal state of mind, and that she does it of her own free will.

And this one is even more obvious, like Helene noted; If you disallowed it, it would be so simple to circumvent, that people would do it any way. Furthermore, it would muddy the water for women who were sincerely in doubt, and needed counseling.

[Fluffy]

Investing on finding a way to decide the gender of the baby before getting pregnant might help.

[jjbrr]

Sex-based.

[jillybean]

hrothgar, on Aug 6 2009, 02:45 AM, said:

No objection on this part (provided that the abortion is performed during the first trimester, maybe a bit longer)

I'm pro choice
I think that women should be allowed early term abortions for whatever reason they might choose.

Should the father have any say in the matter?

[hrothgar]

jillybean, on Aug 6 2009, 05:16 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Aug 6 2009, 02:45 AM, said:

No objection on this part (provided that the abortion is performed during the first trimester, maybe a bit longer)

I'm pro choice
I think that women should be allowed early term abortions for whatever reason they might choose.

Should the father have any say in the matter?

Complicated question: In a perfect world, I would hope than a women contemplating an abortion would be able to have an open and honest discussion with her partner and reach an effective compromise. In a similar vein, i would hope that she would be able to discuss this with her entire support network.

In actuality, I don't think that this holds true. If I have to err on one side or the other, I think that the individual who is carrying the fetus gets to decide what she wants to do.

[Phil]

My views about abortion, unlike my views about religion haven't changed much over the years.

I still believe its wrong, and I would feel very sad if one of my daughters asked me if she should have one.

It's especially repulsive to me that someone would abort a fetus because of its sex (or hair color, or whatever).

However, I think its much, much worse for the government to tell us what we should do with our bodies.

[kenberg]

A conservative friend once remarked "freedom includes the right to make some really dumb choices". I pretty much subscribe to that view.

"Judge not lest you be judged yourself" is a reasonable approach to many things but aborting based on the sex of the child is incomprehensible to me. But let it be. If a significant number of people would actually do this then we are all doomed anyway.

[Gerben42]

I think it's repulsive for someone to decide an abortion based on the sex of the baby. I think if someone told me that she did this, I would despise her, I think.

But I think everyone who wants to ban abortions altogether, ESPECIALLY MEN, are out of line. I think it is unacceptable to make women prisoners of their own body if they become pregnant against their will. It is extremely arrogant to force your morals upon the woman.

Abortion is a decision that is never easy for the woman and not a decision that should be encouraged. But if you make it a crime, be aware that you are creating a lot of unnecessary unhappiness for no reason but your own personal morals. This is why the organization "Women on waves" is very important and should be supported. In case you don't know, this organization takes up women from countries that outlaw abortion, take them into international waters and then help them with their abortion.

If you do not think that this is a better solution than these women trying to poison themselves to kill the baby or some other barbaric methods, that would disappoint me.

The correct way to look at such ethical issues is with an open mind and without prejudice. Unfortunately, this is only the case in very few countries...

[kenberg]

To add one thought to what Gerben said:

The well-off and the well-connected have always had access to abortion and always will have. Money changes hands and it gets done. It's the poor and the scared that need the law to be on their side here.

[jjbrr]

Against their will? I'd be interested to know how many abortions result from events that were truly and entirely against a woman's will. I always thought it takes two to tango.

Personally, I agree sex-based abortions are repulsive.

However, I'm also in the, probably, small minority of people who think people around the world should stop having so many bleeping kids, especially if they can't afford them, don't have time for them, don't want to support them, or, frankly, aren't qualified to be parents. I wouldn't go as far as to say some people should be required to have an abortion if they're clearly, objectively incapable of raising a child to become an effective, contributing member of society, but I suspect in the long run this would have many positive results, big picture around the world after enough generations. You know the kinds of people I'm talking about. And on a micro level, well, if it would prevent a child from being born who would be raised as a burden and a liability in an unloving environment with little or no opportunity for adequate attention and education, wtp? Besides, someone please explain to me why, in this day in age, anyone might need eight children, except for purely selfish and irresponsible reasons? Puhleeze. Maybe they'll make a TV show about it!

That said, sex-based abortions would clearly be made entirely for selfish reasons, and frankly I'm not a fan of the "I want it my way and if you don't like it screw you, and good luck trying to stop me" mentality. The same philosophy applies to such things as frivolous lawsuits, deforestation of rainforests for timber or to make room for farming to fill someone's wallet, North Korea's nuclear weapons capabilities, pretty much every world problem we're encountering. When was the last time you heard someone say, "Wow, I just realized the effect my (irresponsible) actions might have on ______ (other people, the environment, my or someone else's future, fill in the blank with anything), I should totally change my perspective on issues on which I used to stand very firmly, because I realize what I'm doing really only hurts ______ and benefits me!" Unfortunately, this type of thinking isn't socially acceptable.

Done ranting. Thanks for letting me kill half an hour at work.

[bid_em_up]

jjbrr, on Aug 6 2009, 03:04 PM, said:

However, I'm also in the, probably, small minority of people who think people around the world should stop having so many bleeping kids, especially if they can't afford them, don't have time for them, don't want to support them, or, frankly, aren't qualified to be parents. I wouldn't go as far as to say some people should be required to have an abortion if they're clearly, objectively incapable of raising a child to become an effective, contributing member of society.....

Why require them to have an abortion?

I'd much prefer that such people be required to have a vasectomy or their tubes tied before ever either getting someone pregnant or getting pregnant on their own. Preventative methods rather than post-coital methods would work wonders for this world. Oh, I forgot. The church refuses to discuss birth control, but instead prefers to insist that these unwanted children be born into lives of misery because abortion is "wrong".

Go figure.

[jjbrr]

bid_em_up, on Aug 6 2009, 04:02 PM, said:

Why require them to have an abortion?

I'd much prefer that such people be required to have a vasectomy or their tubes tied before ever either getting someone pregnant or getting pregnant on their own. Preventative methods rather than post-coital methods would work wonders for this world.

Because what do you do about 13-16 year olds who decide to "experiment" with their boyfriends and end up pregnant?

In 10-20 years, there's no doubt both the girl and the guy might be fine, well-educated people perfectly suitable for parenthood. But not in middle school or their first years of high school.

For some people who have passed this point and are clearly hopelessly unsuited, and assuming you were serious, I wouldn't be unopposed. Nor would I be opposed after one's 3rd or 4th child, because as I said, what's the need after that?

[kfay]

bid_em_up, on Aug 6 2009, 04:02 PM, said:

I'd much prefer that such people be required to have a vasectomy or their tubes tied before ever either getting someone pregnant or getting pregnant on their own. Preventative methods rather than post-coital methods would work wonders for this world.

Plato's Republic!!! ahhh, high school

[gwnn]

I am disappointed with the absolutely dismissive attitude your reply, Gerben, showed. I don't understand why for you the question of abortion is quite so simple.

Quote

I think it is unacceptable to make women prisoners of their own body if they become pregnant against their will. It is extremely arrogant to force your morals upon the woman.

The group of pro-life people is diverse so this is sort of a straw man. Not everyone who opposes abortion think women must give birth after rape/incest (assuming that's what your first sentence means). I think this is complicated, though. Anyway, if suppose a woman has given birth to such a child but then at 10 murdered him/her, it would be clearly wrong, the same applies to if he/she is 1, or 1 day old... So where exactly is the line? Why do you think it is so clear cut? You could say that the fetus is a "part of her body" but I don't think it is a really immediate fact that this distinction is real (just 1 minute before giving birth there are two bodies not one). So if one person thinks terminating the life of a fetus 1 month old should be stopped then one is arrogantly forcing one's morals upon others, but if someone else thinks terminating the life of a human 1 month old should be stopped, he/she represents good, solid moral grounds.

Quote

But if you make it a crime, be aware that you are creating a lot of unnecessary unhappiness for no reason but your own personal morals.

The idea that 1 month fetuses deserve protection is just personal morals and the idea that 1 month old children deserve protection is UN norm and a basic truth that goes without saying. I think the only difference between these two ideas is that the latter is much more agreed upon than the former. I don't think one is just a personal moral value (that causes unnecessary anguish in certain countries) and the other is an axiom. With this I do not wish to open up a debate on the rights of small infants, of course, but restrict the set of 'personal morals' (that should never materialize to law).

[matmat]

I don't think men should have abortions.

[luke warm]

i personally am against abortions, but think the gov't isn't the entity to say one way or the other

[awm]

The idea of people aborting a fetus because they don't like the gender of the potential child, or for that matter the hair or skin color, is abhorrent to many of us.

However, I think the anti-abortion lobby is throwing up a bit of a smokescreen here. Apparently most late-term abortions occur when the prospective mother discovers that the fetus will have seriously debilitating medical problems. In some cases the child is unlikely to survive much past birth, and in others the quality of life for both child and mother will be truly awful. Should a woman be forced to give birth to a child without a brain (to detail one such disorder), which will never really "live", possibly at great risk to her own health (both physical and mental) and at great financial cost (to be borne by the parents, the insurance company, or the hospital depending on the situation)?

As for early-term abortions, a lot of them are the result of teen pregnancies. Some education about birth control would go a long way towards preventing this situation from arising -- but of course many of the big anti-abortion lobbies are also anti-birth control and anti-sex-education, positions which are much less popular and much less comprehensible than simply being "pro-life."