gender abortion

[Oldiesfreak1854]

No.  I don't get why it violates women's rights when baby girls in the developing world can be aborted because of their sex, but it's a women's rights violation to not allow the same thing in the States.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

No.  I don't get why it violates women's rights when baby girls in the developing world can be aborted because of their sex, but it's a women's rights violation to not allow the same thing in the States.

...

[politicallefty]

I don't like that for a reason, but I am pro-choice until fetal viability. The reason as to why a woman may seek an abortion during that time frame is irrelevant.

[ElectionsGuy]

It's horrible, but laws based on controlling peoples reasons for doing things are generally intrusive and ineffective, so it should be legal.

[Hatman 🍁]

Yes - it's not that big a deal in western countries. However in countries where it is a problem (India and China), I would make it illegal for a doctor to disclose the gender. 

Sex based abortions are not only terrible on a moral issue, they can create demographic havoc in society. When you have a country full of undersexed men, bad things could happen (only takes a few Elliot Rodgers to really do damage).

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Given that I'm pro-life, I'm obviously against gender selective abortion.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Go ahead... like I said before, I just don't care if a woman gets an abortion and I'm not going to pretend I do to make myself look like a "better person".  Whatever her reason, if you want to I'm not going to stop you or judge you.  Not my place.  

If we want to tackle the problem of one gender being preferable to another in a society, how about we get to the root of the issue, that being inequality? 

[Consciously Unconscious]

Given that I'm pro-life, I'm obviously against gender selective abortion.

[Person Man]

It's horrible, but laws based on controlling peoples reasons for doing things are generally intrusive and ineffective, so it should be legal.

I suppose the alternative to all of this would be to have abortion made an administrative issue like is in the UK or Israel (or Colorado before Roe v. Wade). You know what they say, a good compromise is when no one is happy.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

It's horrible, but laws based on controlling peoples reasons for doing things are generally intrusive and ineffective, so it should be legal.

I suppose the alternative to all of this would be to have abortion made an administrative issue like is in the UK or Israel (or Colorado before Roe v. Wade). You know what they say, a good compromise is when no one is happy.

What the deuce does this mean? 

[Person Man]

It's horrible, but laws based on controlling peoples reasons for doing things are generally intrusive and ineffective, so it should be legal.

I suppose the alternative to all of this would be to have abortion made an administrative issue like is in the UK or Israel (or Colorado before Roe v. Wade). You know what they say, a good compromise is when no one is happy.

What the deuce does this mean?  

Not that I'm for this idea, but it would be a good compromise in purple and light blue states if Roe was ignored is that all clinics would be illegal and that at least one major hospital in each small state or big city would have to perform abortions.  At that hospital, there would be a board of Gynecologists,  Bioethicists and a Mediator/ALJ (probably 3 officials in total and would be comprised of a pro-choice person, a pro-life person and someone they both can agree with) where a woman, free of charge, would file for an abortion. There, she would state her claim, with or without an attorney and would be able to call witnesses. The family would be notified and be allowed to represent the rights of the fetus. Everything would have to be taken care of within a few days from file to finish.

The way it works in other countries is that in Israel about 99% of the time, permission with the abortion is granted. I'm not sure about in the United Kingdom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Israel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_Kingdom

[TJ in Oregon]

Given that I'm pro-life, I'm obviously against gender selective abortion.

I mean, I agree, but there isn't an effective way of outlawing gender-selective abortion. You could forbid abortion providers from performing an abortion if the mother volunteers the information that she's having one to select for a particular gender, or perhaps if you really want to go after it you could require the mothers to provide a reason why they want an abortion and forbid the abortion provider from performing one in the event that the mother gives gender selection as the reason. Either way, you won't be stopping many since presumably next to no one would actually admit it's to have a particular gender.

I'd support a law like this in the once-in-a-blue moon case where it would actually apply, but this whole topic is rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic. While the reason here is abhorrent clearly, as a parent should love their children no matter which gender they are, there is no reason for an elective abortion that isn't abhorrent; a parent should love their children no matter what.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

It's horrible, but laws based on controlling peoples reasons for doing things are generally intrusive and ineffective, so it should be legal.

I suppose the alternative to all of this would be to have abortion made an administrative issue like is in the UK or Israel (or Colorado before Roe v. Wade). You know what they say, a good compromise is when no one is happy.

What the deuce does this mean?  

Not that I'm for this idea, but it would be a good compromise in purple and light blue states if Roe was ignored is that all clinics would be illegal and that at least one major hospital in each small state or big city would have to perform abortions.  At that hospital, there would be a board of Gynecologists,  Bioethicists and a Mediator/ALJ (probably 3 officials in total and would be comprised of a pro-choice person, a pro-life person and someone they both can agree with) where a woman, free of charge, would file for an abortion. There, she would state her claim, with or without an attorney and would be able to call witnesses. The family would be notified and be allowed to represent the rights of the fetus. Everything would have to be taken care of within a few days from file to finish.

The way it works in other countries is that in Israel about 99% of the time, permission with the abortion is granted. I'm not sure about in the United Kingdom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Israel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_Kingdom

WTF?!  This actually happens?  Sickening.

[Person Man]

It's horrible, but laws based on controlling peoples reasons for doing things are generally intrusive and ineffective, so it should be legal.

I suppose the alternative to all of this would be to have abortion made an administrative issue like is in the UK or Israel (or Colorado before Roe v. Wade). You know what they say, a good compromise is when no one is happy.

What the deuce does this mean?  

Not that I'm for this idea, but it would be a good compromise in purple and light blue states if Roe was ignored is that all clinics would be illegal and that at least one major hospital in each small state or big city would have to perform abortions.  At that hospital, there would be a board of Gynecologists,  Bioethicists and a Mediator/ALJ (probably 3 officials in total and would be comprised of a pro-choice person, a pro-life person and someone they both can agree with) where a woman, free of charge, would file for an abortion. There, she would state her claim, with or without an attorney and would be able to call witnesses. The family would be notified and be allowed to represent the rights of the fetus. Everything would have to be taken care of within a few days from file to finish.

The way it works in other countries is that in Israel about 99% of the time, permission with the abortion is granted. I'm not sure about in the United Kingdom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Israel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_Kingdom

WTF?!  This actually happens?  Sickening.

That probably doesn't happen in Israel and UK, but I can see a right-leaning swing state like Ohio, North Carolina  or Florida compromising on such policies after Roe can no longer survive the Hardwick test. Or if Griswold can no longer survive the test put forward in the early 40s that gave the death knell to SDP on econ issues that were decided in the early 1900s, such as Lochner.

[Lurker]

It does feel disgusting to me, but as long as abortion is legal (which I think it should remain), there really is no way to prevent it. Those who want an abortion for that reason (and I imagine they are pretty rare) obviously won't say so, in most cases.

[RR1997]

It really wouldn't be enforceable.

[Person Man]

There is an obvious downside.  In China, which has a long record of sex selection, 30 million more men than women will reach adulthood and enter China's mating market by 2020.  This can have some pretty severe consequences.   Young men with poor prospects may discount their futures and take ridiculous risks in order to improve their prospects. They also become more violent, rising more readily to perceived slights and insults, and starting more fights. These are the triggers for most man-on-man assaults and homicides.  Still, I'm not against abortion generally and in the United States we don't really have a long history of valuing boys more than girls so I don't think it will be a long-term problem here. 

The effects of this are pretty severe. Much for the same reasons that polygamy is incredibly dangerous to society, a society with far more males than females cannot really function and remain stable.

I'd actually say that this is one of the strongest arguments against unrestricted abortion. This would clearly have some very negative social consequences for our society - it'd effect everyone. Male access to women goes down, murder goes up, rape goes up, and crime in general goes up. It's irrational, and can really only be ideologically motivated, to allow gender-selective abortion out of some vague principle of "muh freedom" when the repercussions could be this drastic.

Too bad we can't reproduce like cats, who can get pregnant from multiple male cats. Biology seems to be a limit on personal liberty. Sometimes it won't make a difference. Othertimes, like in the military, it will make a large but not total difference (for jobs where many males but very few females will qualify for) and sometimes it will be a total difference, for example, polygamy.

[SNJ1985]

Given that I'm pro-life, I'm obviously against gender selective abortion.

[politicus]

There is an obvious downside.  In China, which has a long record of sex selection, 30 million more men than women will reach adulthood and enter China's mating market by 2020.  This can have some pretty severe consequences.   Young men with poor prospects may discount their futures and take ridiculous risks in order to improve their prospects. They also become more violent, rising more readily to perceived slights and insults, and starting more fights. These are the triggers for most man-on-man assaults and homicides.  Still, I'm not against abortion generally and in the United States we don't really have a long history of valuing boys more than girls so I don't think it will be a long-term problem here. 

The effects of this are pretty severe. Much for the same reasons that polygamy is incredibly dangerous to society, a society with far more males than females cannot really function and remain stable.

I'd actually say that this is one of the strongest arguments against unrestricted abortion. This would clearly have some very negative social consequences for our society - it'd effect everyone. Male access to women goes down, murder goes up, rape goes up, and crime in general goes up. It's irrational, and can really only be ideologically motivated, to allow gender-selective abortion out of some vague principle of "muh freedom" when the repercussions could be this drastic.

Reproduction is controlled by women in the West and for a number of reasons women on average prefer to have girls, so allowing gender abortion would result in more girls than boys being born.

The reason women give for preferring girls is greater chance of a fullfilling and satisfying life, greater chance that the offspring will support/be of assistance to their parents in adulthood and less trouble during upbringing. The first one being the most important (in general women tend to think that men are not good at living happy lives - being bad at social relations and not handling adversity and crisis well + focusing too much on outward success, which may not happen).

[Bozo the Clown]

Who could think of such a thing?

[politicus]

Who could think of such a thing?

Plenty of people. I think it would be quite popular. Modern Westerners are individualist consumers wanting to chose everything in their lives, why not the gender of their babies?

[Bozo the Clown]

Who could think of such a thing?

Plenty of people. I think it would be quite popular. Modern Westerners are individualist consumers wanting to chose everything in their lives, why not the gender of their babies?

You're saying abort a baby based on the gender it will be?

[politicus]

Who could think of such a thing?

Plenty of people. I think it would be quite popular. Modern Westerners are individualist consumers wanting to chose everything in their lives, why not the gender of their babies?

You're saying abort a baby based on the gender it will be?

Not me. Its the topic of this thread.

[Bozo the Clown]

Who could think of such a thing?

Plenty of people. I think it would be quite popular. Modern Westerners are individualist consumers wanting to chose everything in their lives, why not the gender of their babies?

You're saying abort a baby based on the gender it will be?

Not me. Its the topic of this thread.

oh sorry, but still how awful

[angus]

for a number of reasons women on average prefer to have girls, so allowing gender abortion would result in more girls than boys being born.

That might be the case in the UK but not in the US.  I don't know about Denmark.  In the UK something like 50% of women want girls but only about 25% want boys.  Also, in the UK 25% of men want boys and 15% want girls.  Only 2% of UK women claim that they would terminate the pregnancy based solely on gender disappointment.  2% of 50% is 1%, so even in the UK it would not have a big effect.

In the US, the differences are much smaller among women, 31% of whom prefer boys while 33% prefer girls.  Among men, 49% prefer boys and 22% prefer girls.  The net preference is for boys (40% to 28% over girls).  There is also some other demographic data in that poll (ed levels, age, etc.)  See it here:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148187/americans-prefer-boys-girls-1941.aspx

No mention of the percent who would want to terminate based on gender disappointment, but I expect it to be small, as in the UK.  It could be a hard call:  "The degree to which Americans deliberately attempt to select the gender of their children is unclear.  It is significant that 18- to 29-year-old Americans are the most likely of any age group to express a preference for a boy because most babies are born to younger adults. The impact of the differences between men and women in preferences for the sex of their babies is also potentially important."

My guess is that it's not a big problem in the West.  Very few would terminate for this reason alone and that those who do won't tilt one way or the other.  In the East, of course, the tilt will likely continue.