E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSBy MyHealthNewsDaily
Doctors should not tell pregnant women the sex of their baby until 30 weeks into a pregnancy, one physician is arguing, taking a stance that is sure to be controversial.
By not revealing a fetus' sex, doctors could prevent abortions related to the sex of the baby, according to Dr. Rajendra Kale, interim editor-in-chief of the Canadian Medical Association Journal. The practice of "sex selection," or the aborting of female fetuses because of a preference for sons, is an issue in several Asian countries, and may also be done by some immigrants in Canada and the United States, Kale said.
"A pregnant woman being told the sex of the fetus at ultrasonography at a time when an unquestioned abortion is possible is the starting point" of sex selection, Kale wrote in the editorial published online in the lastest issue of CMAJ.
Currently, most pregnant women in the United States get an ultrasound between 18 and 22 weeks of pregnancy to look for fetal anomalies.
Kale pointed to research in Canada and the United States indicating that immigrants in certain ethnic groups, including people from China, Korea and India, selectively abort female fetuses: couples who have two daughters are more likely to have a son as their third child than would be expected if left to chance.
Two large organizations of doctors — the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists — agree that sex selection is unethical.
Still, withholding information about the sex of a fetus from a woman is also not ethical, according to the ACOG. "Because a patient is entitled to obtain personal medical information, including information about the sex of her fetus, it will sometimes be impossible for health care professionals to avoid unwitting participation in sex selection," according to a 2007 ACOG committee report.
But Kale argued that although a woman has a right to information about herself as it relates to her health and medical care, the sex of the fetus is medically irrelevant information, and does not affect the care of the pregnant woman or her unborn child. The only exception should be in cases of rare, sex-linked illnesses, Kale said.
While the problem of sex selection in Canada and the United States is likely small, it should not be ignored, according to Kale, a native of Mumbai, India.
The organizations that govern physicians in Canada should adopt policies that limit disclosure of fetal sex by health professionals to after 30 weeks, Kale said.
Related story:
Undesired: In India, boys are prized over girls with violent results
Leave a Comment:
I remember reading a story from a doctor who spoke of a patient she had. This patient was an Indian or Middle-Eastern immigrant, and upon learning that the fetus she was carrying was female, requested an abortion. She spoke tearfully about how she already had several girls and her husband and husband's family would abuse and socially isolate her if her next child wasn't a boy. She was terrified of being found out. She had little money, and no means to leave her extended family. Her family did not know she was pregnant or was at the doctor.
It's always tempting to speak of these issues as if there is a straightforward solution, as if they are morally black-and-white. But they are not. While I believe sex-selective abortions are wrong (I do not believe abortion is wrong), there are also complexities of culture which do not allow the woman bearing the child to fully make their own choice. This is true not only in eastern cultures, but in the case of abortion itself is widespread everywhere, including in the US.
Were you in that doctor's shoes, knowing that this woman would become a victim of horrific abuse if you refused her an abortion, would you turn her away? How do you weigh the value of a life destroyed against a life not yet lived? This doctor couldn't turn her patient away, and I don't think I would either.
This is why we need to hunt down the people that treat women in such a deplorable way and send them straight to hell where they belong. It is the male that decides the sex in the first place and it is his "fault" if all daughters are produced...
If I were the doctor, the police would be notified immediately and the woman would be taken into protective custody until the animals that abuse her are thoroughly dealt with. It makes me sick that anyone would consider perorming the abortion in order to allow an abusive relationship to be somewhat less abusive in the name of "cultural understanding". This is the USA, and if you want to act like an oppressive animal, you can go to jail, leave or die like the vile foreign animal trash you are!
Beat your wife over stupid sh!t? You deserve the death sentence.
At least in this case she already had several girls. While I can not condone arbortion, it gits real ugly with China havin 120 18 year ole boys to 100 girls, or India which is 112 boys to girls. They either gonna be gay or be takin some other peoples women. That's what they did in the ole days.
I agree that this issue is much more complex then the article makes it out to be. While I don't think sex-selection is a good thing - I think it is more a symptom of most cultures not valuing daughters as they do sons. The solution to this is certainly not easy but I don't know if coercing parents into having daughters that they may not want and feel are less-desirable then sons is what we want either. Lets work to create a world were all children are valued.
Eric, what's wrong with you. The PC police will git you. Race Trumps gender. Gay trumps race, Ethnic cultural diversity trumps Gay, and Islam trumps it ALL. LOL!
does her family not realize that the sex of the fetus is dependent on the male or something because if they don't know things like that they probably shouldn't be having sex yet. What happened to good sex education.
Again, just someone generalizing and treating all women like we are not capable of making wise decisions. "Let's not tell them because they will kill their baby". How much does that happen? Does this now mean no women gets to know. What's next? Birth defects, etc? I also believe that many of these women face violence if they don't deliver what's expected. I think eventually as the gender unbalance continues these practices will come to an end. Treating women like they have no rights over their body does not send a good message about the benefit of keeping your female fetus.
Should a woman's rights to do as she pleases (whoring around, getting an abortion out of convenience) be above and beyond the rights of an unborn child?
Do these people still not realize it is the MAN that determines the sex of a baby?? Why not abuse and socially isolate THEM? It's not the woman's "fault", it's not the man's "fault" - it is what it is.
These are the kinds of issues that scare the crap out me as a human being....
"Good" sex education in school has been replaced with teaching 'anti-bullying' to promote homosexual behavior and lifestyles.
Most women can't find out the sex until at least 16 weeks via ultrasound. I've had a practicioner "guess" at 12 weeks, but from what I understand, gender is really not certain on ultrasound until 16-20 wks gestation. Gender is usually revealed at the 20 week appointment ultrasound. I think there are chromosomal tests that can be done as early as 10 weeks, but they would be elective, entail a greater level of risk to the fetus, and pretty expensive to boot. From what I understand, there are several states that have laws banning abortion past 20 weeks. This just seems like fanning the flames of an already controversial issue in a presidential election year.
TheTruthAndNothingButthetruth..
"Fetuses" don't have rights.
Zygotes don't have rights.
Fertilized eggs don't have rights.
Strawman arguments are for those who are incapable of cogent thought.
This is yet another example of conservatives using the anecdotal as evidence of widespread wrong doing, and as a way to promote their repressive agendas.
Find one or two Acorn employees who can be loosly described in undesirable ways...shut the whole system done.
Find evidence that one or two people were wrongfully issued voter i.d. cards, require everyone to show I.D. to be granted a basic right..Rampant voter fraud, you know.
Have a nice day.
"Good" sex education in school has been replaced with teaching 'anti-bullying' to promote homosexual behavior and lifestyles.
No, "Good" sex education has been replaced by the Christo-taliban with "abstinence only" teaching.
How do anti-bullying messages "promote" homosexuality? Do kids think, "since we're not supposed to bully gays, I think that I'll become one"?
Wow, "TheTruthAndNothingButTheTruth", I'm pretty sure that you need a new handle, because if bullying is such an integral part adopting a straight lifestyle, then I would need to start feeling ashamed that I am straight. But I can't help it, I was born this way. It seems unethical to me that someone would try to make me feel ashamed for the way that I was born. Don't you agree?
Shut yer yap, I would suggest if you seek to change minds and opinions not to state your own opinion as fact. Your views on fetuses and zygotes will fail to sway anyone who believes life begins at conception because you presumptively dismiss this position. I for one believe life begins at conception from the perspective of my belief in a loving God. Therefore to abort is to take the life of one of God's creatures and therefore violate one of His most fundamental commandments. If you don't believe in God, I doubt my argument will hold any water with you, and I acknowledge that. But you shouldn't dismiss the opposition so easily. To do so lakcs the intellectual honesty and "cogent thought" you so recklessly refer to above.
How may of you think any of the concepts taught sex education would register with those who show up on the Marie Povich show?
Pippo Schillaci you are correct when you state that the female has the right to controll their bodies and do what they want to a point. 1st of all it takes two to make a baby so I feel that if you are married and in a long lasting relationship then the partner needs to be involved with the decision of the baby, this said then why is ok for a female to have a baby when her partner does not and she goes ahead and have the baby then that person is on the line for child support until the child is 18 yrs old so I feel then that the female should be responsible for the child support and not the person who didn't want the baby. And finally as the mother of 6 beautiful daughters I would never let anyone tell me that I had to KILL Them!!!!!!!!!! so they could have a son as I feel that abortion is murder. I knew the sex of my last three daughters as I needed an ammio done but my other 3 daughters I did not knowuntil they came out as ultrasounds do make mistakes as my 23yr old daughter found out when she was told she was having a little girl and out came a beautiful little boy who brings a lot of joy into our lives as well as his aunts who are younger then him.
(I also believe that life begins at conception.)
That said, what logic dictates that a woman can abort for financial/career/genetic/family/whatever reasons but cannot abort because they want a specific gender? There can be no two ways about it; either they can have abortions for reasons other than medical necessity - and they CAN have abortions to ensure they get the gender they want - or they cannot have abortions unless it is a medical necessity.
Triciam, I am not sure you fully understand the culture that the woman in the story above comes from. Women are crap. Women are lower than camel; women are chattel. They're only purpose in life is to breed young, strong sons who can work and earn a living. Daughters cost money - big money. Daughters are expensive and useless. If the women only has girls, she is of no worth to you and you can divorce her. If she gives birth to a child with medical defects, she is worthless and her genes are crap - divorce her. She is a shame to her family and a shame to her city. She doesn't deserve anything.
^ That is what it is like. That is the culture that the women are raised in. Their worth comes from the sons they bear, and if they cannot bear sons, they are worthless. That is the truth they know from birth.
Shut yer yap -
One or two shallow, cheating, horrible Republican leaders do not make up the entire group. A couple of racist bigots do not make up the entire group.
A fertilized egg, over the course of nine months, becomes a baby? Or is it only a baby when it is born? At what point is the fetus a baby? At 24 weeks, a fetus can be viable. Is it a baby then? How about a fetus who is stillborn? Is it still a fetus since it wasn't viable after birth? What if the woman has a late-term abortion for medical purposes, but the fetus doesn't die and instead is born alive and struggling to live? Is it a baby, or a fetus, and what rights does it have? Do the nurses hold it until it dies, or do they perform life-saving services even if the mother wanted to abort it? What if a fetus has a disease (and no one knows) and it is born, but cannot ever live alone, support itself, will always remain child-like and retain a childs intelligence?
Some people get married precisely with the idea in mind that they will raise a family. When that is the case, for one partner suddenly declaring that they are no longer willing to tolerate the miracle of new life is a betrayal.
Right to abortions aside, there is something wrong when society places so little value on human life.
Malthus was wrong.
When it is born. But it is a genetically unique human life from the moment of conception onward.
Conception is an arbitrary religious word, not a scientific term
The declaration that "fetuses" have no rights is eerily reminiscent of older declarations that wives had no rights.
You should probably stop using them, then. You might even consider applying your moniker to yourself.
Toasty:
Would you prefer "fertilization"? Scientificly, life is cells growing and dividing.
Fertilization is a scientific phrase, but it's not what the Christians mean.
Well, Toasty, I am not a christian. But I still oppose abortion.
Such a declaration is mtrue. Fetuses have no rights, and certainly none which override those of the woman.
Who cares? Abortions are performed for financial reasons, because women don't want to lose their shape and that it might be uncomfortable for them to carry a baby to term. These reasons are just as stupid as sex selection, yet those who favor virtual abortion on demand are shocked it has gone to this level?
Give me a break.
Obama Lies:
From one man to another - stay out of the abortion debate.
overpopulationiistheproblem:
never a truer or better piece of advice. you're damned on either side if youre a man with an opinion on abortion.
If men could get pregnant, there'd be drivethrough abortion clinics on every other corner.
flbikerchick- you mean there's not? I didn't have any problem finding a place to have it done.
My insurance even picked up the tab.
Real men, and women for that matter, don't simply view abortion as birth control.
i think that that is completely untrue. some women have legitament reasons for having an abortion. you shouldnt just forget about the people who have no choice. just like the story above, i belive that no two stories are the same and you must handle each matter delicately. it is unfair to withhold information about a baby from its mother, in my opinion. you shouldnt just cast off the people who have abortions because those mothers have no other choice in the matter. in other countries, not necissarily the US, this might be a good idea at first, but as those unwanted babies are growing up and are neglected or abused just because of their gender, you think back and will wonder, "what could have been done to stop this"? if a baby is unwanted, wouldnt it be better to just let the parents decide the best option for their own situation? abortions are a fact of life in these kinds of cultures. you have to respect these cultures and their ways of life, but you dont have to agree with them, and i do not agree with this withholding of crucial information pertaining to the babies of these mothers. i, personally, am not shocked that this matter has come up as a source of critisism in this country, and am sure it has faced critisism in other countries, too.
flbikerchick:
Nice of you to say so, but since your statement cannot now, nor could it ever be proven, that's a pretty stupid and sexist thing to say.
They have waiting periods on abortion, and getting snipped or tied. I can get a gun today. On demand, my hiney.
Men should not "stay out of the abortion debate". I feel that, as the man is half the child inside the woman, he has a right to say what he wants to. A woman who has a boyfriend/one night stand/HUSBAND should consult him if she gets pregnant by him. He should have the right to say, "Yes, I want the baby (or no, I don't), and I'll take care of the child."
It's not at all clear that a husband and a one night stand have an equal stake in this matter.
I was emphasizing husband, but yes, even if it were a one night stand, they have the right to say, "I don't want a kid" (or "I do want a kid").
Who is the doctor to question the logic behind any abortion?
Broodstar1987:
Who is the doctor to question the logic behind any procedure? Oh wait...he's the doctor.
There was an Egg Harbor, New Jersey couple years ago who filed a lawsuit on their daughter's 2nd birthday charging the mother's obstetrician with negligence for failing to tell the mother that a fever she had during her pregnancy "could" harm her unborn child. The daughter was subsequently born deaf.
The parents alleged in the lawsuit that the doctor's negligence prevented them from having the chance to abort the child rather than have a deaf baby. What message are they sending to their child....we wish we could've killed you when we had the chance?
Sad stuff out there-- people are aborting for bunch of reasons-- none of 'em good.
Have you ever raised a deaf child or seen a child die by their 4th birthday due to a horrible genetic defect? Do you have the slightest concept of what it's like to have multiple children and have ONE have a disability that impacts your ability to care for the others as well?
Don't be so quick to judge and harsh to criticize.
"Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible." - Dalai Lama
Yikes. I wonder what that little girl feels about her parents now.
the reasons are none of your business and not for you to judge
It seems that the child's deafness is a "hardship" on the parents, not the child. I know several deaf people and they do just fine, getting an education, getting a job, living on their own. If killing is the solution to a "problem," then kill the ones who are having the problem (i.e., the parents).
NJ-AZ, God gave you a brain to make good judgments. Yes, it is delicate, but we must make judgments or forego our distinction as human beings. For the same reasons you suggest, people kept quiet about alcoholism, molestation, spousal abuse, and false reasons for war. Yes, it is for society to judge by making good judgments based on principles. Please use the brain that God gave you, and not cop out to Post-Modern ignorance of right and wrong. Stand up against evil, whether it be Nazis, or Stalin, or Communism, or abortion based on sex selection. Do you have a backbone? Do you have a brain?
@jerry
ExcelLent point. The parents have every right to abort themselves if it is too hard for them to deal with their child. I believe there are a ton of gay couple sout there who would be more than happy to care for an adopted deaf child as their own.
@"OptimalThinker": Yes, I know what it is like, and even knowing ahead of time I never would have aborted any of my children even if it impacted my health or risked my life (which it did). I have four children all of the same gender and even though I was hoping for the opposite gender for my last child, I am not dissappointed and I do not love him any less than my other children. He is my heart. Even though he has multiple disabilities, that does not make him a "burden" and it is not such an impossible task (there are plenty of support groups/resourses out there) that I cannot care for my other children (I even have 3 chronic illnesses now as well). As a matter of fact, he has made all our lives all the better and has made all of us more patient, loving,unselfish, and understanding people which is what is sorely lacking in this world.
NJ AZ:
We are not talking about deciding to have a bowl of chocolate ice cream. We are talking about deliberately killing another human being. I don't suppose you are of the mind that no one should ever judge anyone's actions and/or motives? Abortion is an action that does great harm. Specificly, it causes death. People are going to judge that. And they have every right to do so.
@Optimal Thinker:
I know EXACTLY what that is like. I have 4 children and my third child, a little girl, has Cerebral Palsy. Caring for my daughter is absolutely harder than caring for her other 3 siblings. She can't walk, she isn't toilet trained, she can't dress herself and she struggles to do all of the things that average people take for granted. And do you know what that has done to my family? It has made us STRONGER. She has made her siblings more compassionate, more empathetic, and more thoughtful people than I could ever have taught them to be. She has challenged her parents to fight harder for their marriage and their family then they ever might have without her. I WISH every child had a chance to grow up around a child with disabilities because they would grow up to be more selfless, loving human beings.
1-It's not a doctor's place to worry about such things.
2-I'd say abortion is preferable to dumpster babies.
Babies that are aborted DO end up in dumpsters, where did you think they throw the babies out after they've done their "job"?!
Carise: Really? That's your comment?
Let me rephrase it for the under-intelligent: I'd say abortion is preferable to someone carrying a child full-term, then dumpsterizing it.
Does that make it clearer? I really can't simplify it further :(
This is an interesting topic. I don't think physicians need to aid people who would seek to terminate a normal, healthy pregnancy based only on their desire for a particular gender. Sex selection isn't a major problem in the U.S. I'm unsure of the prevalence of sex-selection in Canada's Asian population.
I can't understand how one can kill a human life and call it abortion and be alright with it and yet, call women like Casey Anthony a baby killer and then fight for justice for her poor little girl Cayleel!!! Abortion is wrong at any cost in the sight of God!
And what makes someone think that just because you are denied to be told the gender of the baby, that child if female and unwanted will survive or be treated well after birth!!
What exactly is being prevented, just because the parents are in the dark abt the gender of their child!!! Is something going to be done abt how a so called " unwanted child" will be treated and raised???
If you don't want a child people ,atleast be decent enough to give that child up for adoption so that an other family can cherish and love this precious little gift from God.
Aman! i agree!!! :)
Eugene:
Once the doctor has become directly involved, it is his place to worry about such things. There are things that I will not facilitate. And, if he thinks his services are being abused, he has the right to withhold them. However, with "dumpster babies," sometimes they are found and get a chance at life. With abortion, it is guaranteed, painful death for the child.
Pvblivs: If a woman asks her doctor to perform a sex check on her unborn fetus, it is absolutely none of his business why she wants to know. If you think you have a right to know, you don't. There are legitimate reasons for wanting to know that don't involve abortion.
Eugene, hate to disagree with you there, but it is his business...as an ultrasound for sex determination without any signs of a sex-lined abnormality is not a medically necessary procedure. The same way that certain states are writing bills to demand that women view an ultrasound of the fetus prior to termination of pregnancy.
Some physicians provide the service, but I don't think any can be compelled to perform a sex-determining ultrasound without a legitimate reason.
But as far as abortions go, the majority of abortions are performed in the first 9 weeks, whereas most women get a sex determining ultrasound around 18-22 weeks. Less than 4% of induced abortions were performed between 16-20 weeks, and about 1.5% were performed after 21 weeks. I really doubt in the U.S. many of these later abortions were because of sex determination. The problem isn't big in the U.S. and Canada, however the point of this article is to address practices of certain immigrant communities.
Actually Pvblivs, abortion is usually performed before 12 weeks of pregnancy. Usually via pill which mimics miscarriage.
Did you know that over 25% of pregnancies end naturally before 12 weeks? Do you tell women who have had miscarriages that their child died a painful death? No? Why? Because you know its not true. Thats why.
But that implies that the doctor has the right to ask the reason. A sex-selective abortion is not one of those legitimate reasons.
Mandy:
Women who have had miscarriages already know that their children have died painful deaths. But to give a more general answer to your question, I am not in the habit of reminding mourners what the deceased went through. But we are not dealing with mourners, here. Here we are dealing with killers, those who specificly seek abortion, not those who suffer through a miscarriage.
No they dont, its an absolute lie because a 9 week old fetus can't feel anything.
Maybe you should stop spreading propaganda and lies.
And "suffer" through miscarriage? Again. If people stopped spreading lies and would stop and realize that nature is not perfect, and when an egg doesn't implant correctly, or something goes wrong in the process, your body ends the pregnancy so you don't end up with a mutant. Over 25% of pregnancies end this way dude. Thats a lot. And some organizations think it could be more around 40%. That means a lot of women have had miscarriages. Its not a horrible thing. A miscarriage is actually a good thing if you think about it biologically. It means that something not working gets discarded, and you try again.
Abortion is only a chosen way of discarding something that is not going to work. If you cannot afford a child, or you are not in a stable place in life, your body doesn't know that, but you do.
A woman has the right to opt for an abortion regardless of the reasons.
Do you have some study to back up that claim? Most miscarriages occur befor the embryo has a developed nervous system, so it doesn't feel anything.
Abortion is a valid and legal medical procedure. It is not mureder or even viewed as such in the eyes of the law.
Who cares? Your god is irrelevant to the abortion debate and not everyone believes in your god!
Are you adopting any of them? I'm sure there are already thousands availablre for adoption. Why add to the surplus? Besides, why should a woman be forced to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want, like some breeding cattle?
They probably end up in incinerators along with other medical waste. They're not tossed in the trash as you imply.
Mandy:
I don't claim that nature is perfect. But I have seen enough women who have "lost the baby" to say emphaticly that they did, indeed, suffer through the miscarriage. By the way, do you go around telling such women that "it" was "just a blob" and that they shouldn't grieve?
A lot of women have had 2- and 3-year-old children die in their arms. Frequency does not make it any less a horrible thing.
Gee, perhaps you would like to advocate killing the children after they are born instead. In most instances, that is safer for the mother. And the same reasoning applies. It's just a chosen method of discarding something that "is not going to work."
They were probably emotionally distraut, as they were probably excited over the pregnancy and wanted to carry the pregnancy.
I don't tell anyone how they should feel.
There's a big difference betweena 2-3 year old child and a 2-3 week old embryo.
Most miscarriages occur before the woman even knows they're pregnant.
No, that would actually be illegal.
Not by a long shot!
I don't tell people how they should feel. But if I were to have a miscarriage, I would not grieve. I would accept it and try again.
Again, as I said before, miscarriage is the ending of a pregnancy which is not going correctly. So yes, it is a good thing.
Funny how Pro-lifers always think that because I am pro choice that I advocate running around killing children.
Killing live children is illegal. Abortion is not. That reasoning does not apply, because a woman can know pretty early on in the pregnancy that she is not stable enough to have a child. And I'm not sure how jail time is safer to the mother than taking a pill and going home. Want to explain that one to me?
Again, as I said before, miscarriage is the ending of a [life] which is not going correctly. So yes, it is a good thing.
That would be the same degree that natural infant deaths are the ending of lives which are not going correctly. I do not consider them good things.
Maybe it's because the same argument you use in favor of abortion (killing children before birth) works just as well after birth.
By your own statment (under current law) killing live children before birth is not illegal. However, since we are discussing what the law should be, the existing legal consequences do not apply. If the law were as I think it should be, those abortions based on mere choice would draw the same jail time. On the assumption of legality (that is what you want, isn't it?) waiting until after birth is much safer than an invasive surgery.
So you would rather have mutant babies? Babies born without brains, without lungs, or severely deformed? Yes these things sometimes do happen, but it would be more if the body didn't naturally try to end these types of things.
Only if you twist it. (No surprise that you do) A child is an autonomous individual with real thoughts, desires, and learning capabilities. An embryo or fetus is not. It doesn't have developed systems, it cannot survive outside the womb.
But your reasoning is based on religious reasons. Thankfully we do make laws based on imaginary men in the sky, and his followers interpretation of his wishes.
And again, in reality, the majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester. That means a pill. No surgery. Very few happen in the 2nd trimester. But don't let those pesky facts get in your way. I see you really just enjoy spreading lies.
And actually, if you are really going with that argument, a surgery is probably much safer than a birth. Surgery is controlled and planned. Births can go radically wrong much more easily. It comes out much easier when its the size of an apple as opposed to a watermellon.
No, it doesn't!
"should be" is not the same as "actually is." Maybe you think that's how it should be, but others do not. If you want to change the law, go throught the courts!
Who are you to try and impose your beliefs onto others? A woman's "choice" is a constitutionally protected one.
How about actual facts rather than your erroneous assumptions?
Many people have disputed the claim of real thoughts, desires, and learning capabilities in newborns, just as you do in preborns. The birthing process does not magically bestow these. And the total dependency of the pre-born does not justify making them "acceptable targets." However, I still did not twist it. You have now added your distinction as an afterthought. Since I threw your argument back at you with no twisting, but with a target you do not consider acceptable, you had to come up with something that you saw as different. You came up with several "differences" that I think are fake, and one (the total dependency) that I consider an inadequate justification. The argument really does remain the same. Your desire that it only be applied to your "acceptable targets" does not change that.
Are you aware of what happens when you assume? I don't use religious-based reasons. And I defy you to show where I have advocated anything based on religion. By the way, Gordy managed to mix up some quotes of mine with some "quotes" that I can't even find originals for but were certainly not made by me, assuming he didn't just invent them to try to create a strawman.
Strange, I think I should be saying that to you.
Your dream-world may be different from that of the religious fanatics; but it is no less a dream-world. Yes, sometimes things go wrong with births. Things go wrong more often with surgeries. Humans are naturally adapted to births from thousands and millions of years and are not similarly adapted to surgery. Incidentally, "pop a pill" doesn't even work most of the way into the first trimester. By the time you are sure of the pregnancy, implantation has occurred and you are talking surgery.
I try to include all points and quotes so I can reply in one post. That's why I include the original quote I'm responding to. And I have never made up anything, much less some quote falsely attribted to someone!
Really? Who disputes that?
irrelevant! In terms of abortion, it is a legal medical procedure availble to women.
The RU-486 (Mifepristone) is a pill which terminates pregnancy after implantation. 600mg is usually a effective dose. Smaller doses can be used as an emergency conraceptive.
Everything I have said has been factual. Most of what you have said has been pure opinion. My opinions are at least based on biological facts.
I dont know where you get your "facts" but you have been misinformed. Mifepristone can be taken until week 9. (Which, btw, is all the way through the first trimester) We are not talking about the "Plan B" pill, which you take before implantation. Usually a woman can know she is pregnant when she misses her period, around 3 to 4 week after implantation. That gives her 4-5 weeks in which she can take a pill. I have taken the pill. It works. Its extremely effective. 95-98% effective in fact.
And speaking of surgery, they dont even put you out for vacuum aspiration. You are more likely to go under when you get your wisdom teeth removed.
Another fact for you, 88% of abortions are performed in the first trimester.
"Are you going to scamble it's brains or vacuum it out? If you want, you can just scramble it and I'll queef it out myself." ---Mr. Garrison [after a sex-change operation and thinking s/he's pregnant], South Park
lol, Gordy, no wonder Pvblivs is confused!
Mandy:
You claim that I was basing my argument on an imaginary sky-daddy was quite contra-factual. A quick inspection reveals that. I hope you don't mind that I use that as the standard by which I gauge the reliability of your other statements.
Is that really supposed to mean anything? Killing someone someone earlier does not make it okay. And it certainly doesn't justify slitting a baby's throat while a toe is still in the womb (legal under the current, bad standard) just because 88 percent of these killings happen in the first 3 months.
You apparently agree with Gordy that creating a strawman of the position of those opposed to abortion is the way to go because it is easier to knock down.
Merely your opinion and the law agrees. Or are you arguing for fetal personhood?
Somehow, I doubt you know how an abortion is performed or the stages of gestation when it is. It sounds like you get your information off propaganda sites.
I wager she agrees with my position that abortion is a legal and constitutionally protected choice. Feel free to oppose abortion all you want. It doesn't change anything. Your position is so easy to knock down because it doesn't stand up to logical, medical, or legal scrutiny.
Typo. I meant the law disagrees with you.
Pvblivs is at it again.
Did you notice that part of his sentence? He's attempting to manipulate the word "live". There are no children before birth. It is a fetus and has a fetuses physiology, until it has been separated from the pregnant woman. Then it becomes a neonate. Again the VAST majority of selective medical abortions occur prior to 9-weeks gestation. 98.5% of abortions are performed prior to 21 weeks gestation. Viability is 24 weeks (come on Pvblivs you know we've been over this before ad nauseum). It is exceedingly rare for a fetus to survive ex utero prior to 24 weeks, and not without significant and severe consequences.
There has never been and never will be a "live child" who was aborted.
Yes, its supposed to mean something. You are up there complaining about them feeling pain, well they can't that early there buddy. They don't have the developed systems yet.
And since when is slitting a baby's throat while a toe is still in the womb legal? 3rd trimester abortion is illegal unless there is a threat to the mother. So what you are saying is completely bogus.
You apparently can't take a joke.
So what about the info on Mifepristone... I noticed you just forgot about that.
Exactly. The only time in the united states that it is legal to abort in the 3rd trimester is if the fetus is NOT viable (meaning missing organs or something) or if it is threatening the mother's life.
Mandy,
I got vacuumed out (miscarriage) and was put under...
http://news.discovery.com/human/fetus-pain-abortion-law.html
Some research has shown that, as early as 18 weeks, a 'fetus' can feel pain.
We're really not sure when a 'fetus' can feel pain. Science is ever-evolving, our knowledge ever increasing, and the ability for children to live outside the womb ever improving.
Yes, 18 weeks. we have been talking MUCH sooner than that. More like 8. Most people don't wait until week 18 to have an abortion.
Try that, docs, and see how fast you lose all of your baby business. The arrogance of that doctor is incredible. The sad part is that we don't practice eugenics nearly enough. Why not only let the smartest and best bred babies be born? And means test the prospective parents? It would make for less Maury participants and American Idol watchers, I know, but we'd be better off in the long run.
Should we start with you and your kids? You sound like an ideal candidate -- for extermination, that is.
Not to throw down the Nazi card so early in the discussion, but maybe you should read your post again, OneOfMany...aloud, in front of normal people.
By the way, the idea that people are going to "take their business elsewhere" because they can't get sex determination is laughable. Most normal parents have other things to consider.
I know a lot of women who didn't want to know the sex of the baby beforehand, but needed it because in America, you don't put a boy in pink or a girl in blue. It's silly, but so are many traditions. Killing girls is a very stupid practice, but in India and China it may be the only birth control that some accept. Only girls make babies, so if there are fewer girls, the population will go down. Limiting doctors here is not a solution though, because those families may find ways to harm their girl children some other way.
As far as eugenics, the backlash is incredible. Look at the news about eugenics that was practiced in North Carolina; and the women are being repaid now. The Nazis used eugenics as an excuse to kill those that they claimed practiced it, and then they turned around and practiced more eugenics than anybody. While some parents will try not to pass along genes of inherited diseases, most children will have unique characteristics.
The sad part is that there are people promoting eugenics at all. The happy part is that since eugenics is complete hokum, it doesn't get practiced as much as those people want.
Funny how it always turns out that OTHER people should be the subject of eugenics. The Jews in Nazi Germany, African Americans, immigrants, but never the people who really deserve: those who propose such filth.
Anybody they didn't like.
Most of the anti-immigrant groups in America today (Center for Immigration Studies, Numbers USA, Federation for American Immigration Reform) were founded by Nazi admirers who want the US to practice eugenics (they sometimes use the word "genetics" as a code word) in a manner that will prove to be "less objectionable" (and therefore more successful in the long run) than what the Nazis did in Germany.
Disgusting.
commonsense....
I like all your posts on this topic.
Go to YouTube and look up "Did You Know" by Kalley Yanta
Prolife supporter or Not-you will walk away with some startling facts from women who actually
assisted in abortions. One woman who assisted in an utrasound abortion; witnessed the baby desperately
backing itself around the womb trying to avoid the utensil which was trying to pull it from the womb.
With that and the arrogant comments from the doctor, she up and quit her job... Yes they do end up in the dumpster.
HHAHAHAHAHA CCW, yea right! Desperately backing itself up?
You, and the people that made that fake video propaganda, are full of it.
In the US, women can get abortions for any, all, or no reason, the most prevalent being plain ol' inconvenience. Therefore, it's incredibly naive to assume that sex-based abortion is "likely small" in the US.
Tamma, it was the Pope who said that women get abortions for convenience...leaving me to wonder if he ever endures any inconvenience at all. The truth is, women get abortions to avoid having their lives shattered...which is something else the Pope does not worry about.
Where do you get your information? I would like to see the study that found "plain ol' inconvenience" is the most prevalent reason for abortion.
Tamma - regardless of what other reasons women are getting abortions in the United States, it's not for sex selection. Most women who are choosing abortion in the U.S. are choosing to do so early in their pregnancy rather than later. If women were choosing abortion because of sex selection the number of late term abortions would be greater than the number of first term abortions. In the US and Canada the number choosing to end their pregnancies because of sex selection is quite small, as even the doctor who proposes this ruling states,it's a very small number and they are from Asian and Far Eastern countries. Now in Asian countries that might be a much different number and I bet they are ending their pregnancies at a much later date in the pregancy.
As if abortion wasn't a divisive issue already. It's sad but true, our technology is far outstripping our morality.
That's assuming that there is something even close to a prevalence of sex-based abortions. The fact is that this is clearly not the case. This man is offering a solution to a problem that does not exist.
Toasty, It's not often but I'm going to disagree with you here. The problem does exist in some Asian countries because of culture and socioeconomic status. Some groups still view a female child as a hinderance rather than an asset. Some view a male child the same way we view a retirement plan. Unfortunately some of these practices follow immigrants when they arrive in the U.S. and Canada. So, while I agree with you sex-selection is not a problem in the general population, it may persist in immigrant enclaves. The topic is not clear cut. On one hand I'm firmly pro-choice, however ultrasound to determine the gender of the fetus is not medically necessary in the vast majority of pregnancies, so I have no problem with a physician not performing the procedure.
But this statement was made by a North American doctor to the North American public.
...that have immigrant populations.
There are some traditions that should not follow immigrants to the host country. And again ultrasound merely for sex-determination is not medically necessary (I even cringe when friends do this and post the results on Facebook--mainly because the poor kid is going to get a years worth of blue or pink clothes and stuffed animals...but that's another discussion).
The physician isn't standing in the way of a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy. He's just not influencing it with an unnecessary test...I have the same thoughts about those silly bills to force a woman to view an unnecessary ultrasound prior to terminating a pregnancy. I believe procedures, no matter how innocuous should only be performed when medically necessary.
I think another hurdle is changing the way some cultures view women.
I don't think you can limit a woman's right to choose. Either she has the right or she doesn't have the right. Whether it's because she wants a boy or because she can't financially or socially afford a baby, it's all the same in the end. Women have the right to decide whether or not to carry a baby to term.
That said, I believe firmly that this decision needs to be made before the end of the 1st trimester (14 weeks) to avoid terminating a viable fetus at 18-22 weeks. If this were the case, gender could only be determined by a blood test not yet widely available in the US or by amnio. It cannot be usually be determined by ultrasound until 16 weeks. Limiting abortion to the 1st trimester would solve a lot of problems.
if they don't want to have a baby or they can't afford a baby they shouldn't be having unprotected sex in the first place and if they can afford an abortion they should have enough money to stay on birth control and buy some condoms
How fortunate for you, Christine from California, that you have never been raped.
Neither of those things are 100% effective. You can still have an unwanted pregnancy when taking all the proper precautions. Don't assume all unprepared parents are irresponsible.
Christine,
Too bad everyone doesn't live in your perfect little world - and people actually make mistakes.
Again - another person who has no clue what their talking about because they've never been in anyone elses shoes...or done anything wrong in their life.
"When you are right, you cannot be too radical. When you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative." MLK, Jr.
Maybe they can come up with a prental test to determine if a female fetus will grow up to become a woman who'll have an abortion. If the test is positive, abort.
to janierock: you don't think you can limit a woman's right to choose...I don't think you should limit the "fetus's" right to choose.
Did you know after conception that you wanted to live? No, I think someone with control made that decision for you? Do you know NOW that you want to live? Does anyone have a RIGHT to determine when you die or if you should continue to live?
If I made the choice to take, say a gun, for instance, and kill you, should there be some one or thing like a government, maybe, to tell me that it is wrong and that I should be punished for doing such a thing? I was just expressing my ability to choose. What's the difference? .....oh, well, the difference is you have a voice and can express your desire not to die. So, you are saying that it's ok to kill something that doesn't have a voice and can't express itself. So you must think it's ok to kill polar bears, pandas, tigers and the such, too. Those "nasty" creatures are expensive to keep in the zoos and they are such a nuisance to have around outside of the zoo....very dangerous, too!
And please tell me why women have the right to decide whether or not to carry to term. A baby requires 2 people...why doesn't the father have a say as to whether his baby dies or not? Alot of people assume the father wants nothing to do with a baby. Why not give the dad an opportunity to raise his child?
It's too bad there isn't more talk about the long term damage done to women and men when they abort. Everyone thinks their problems are over when they kill the "unwanted" baby. Try reading Forbidden Grief- The Unspoken Pain of Abortion written by Theresa Burke, a psychotherapist who has worked with people through counseling and group sessions since 1986. Your problems would end sooner if you would carry the baby to term then give it up for adoption.
And please read any one of the following links. A fetus is no less a human being at 14 weeks, 22 weeks, or 2 minutes after conception. So, killing a fetus is still killing a life. A fetus is only viable if it's given a chance to make it out of the womb.
www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
www.naapc.org/why-life-begins-at-conception
www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/467/43
There are plenty of women who do not know they are pregnant at 14 weeks. Impossible? That is over 3 months into a pregnancy you say. But there are plenty of women who continue to bleed every month until the 2nd or 3rd month, and all the court red tape extends the time longer. I'm not stating a position for or against here, just the biological facts about women's reproduction and the strange facts of hormones. So all the perfect women (like Barbie, from fantasy land) who know immediately when they are pregnant will be the only women allowed to have abortions, even though the hormone-challenged women are the most likely to have the kinds of complications that could threaten their lives?
Sheila:
If you are talking about rape as an exception to a prohibition on abortions, you have a point. If you are just using it for a "no questions asked" stance on abortion, then it is a very poor excuse.
Elizabeth:
I have even heard of women that didn't know they were pregnant until the baby was born. Do you think they should have a couple of months to decide whether they want the child to live or die?
@Christine from California; don't assume they are having unprotected sex; 3 of my 7 children were conceived while I was on birth control!
janierock..."I don't think you can limit a woman's right to choose. Either she has the right or she doesn't have the right."
Well clearly the government does limit a woman's right to choose. She can "choose" to have an abortion up to the end of the first trimester. After that, except under certain uncommon circumstances, a woman cannot "choose" to have an abortion. Well, she can choose to do so and even follow through with it, but it is illegal according the laws currently on the books.
It's simply not as black and white as "Either she has the right or she doesn't have the right."
Anyone who believes that life begins the moment an egg is fertilized is either someone who understands science but chooses to ignore it or someone who has absolutely no idea how reproduction happens. Pregnancy does not begin until an egg implants in the uterine wall. It isn't until several WEEKS later that a clump of dividing cells becomes recognizable as anything remotely human. This is not a thinking or feeling person. This is a clump of humanish-looking cells. The differentiation is more difficult to make once weeks wear on and I think the end of the first trimester is a safe dividing line to choose.
Do people even realize how many of their eggs are fertilized but not implanted over a lifetime? As those eggs pass out of your body during menstruation, do you hold a funeral for your dead baby or just eat a lot of chocolate and take some motrin?
janie...Again, it's simply not as black and white as understanding the biological process of conception/fertilization. You have every right to base your values/opinions on biological processes if you want, but not everyone uses that criteria for what they, to use your term, believe.
No one has any more right to tell you what criteria you base your values on than you do to tell someone else what criteria they base theirs on.
hs321, janie has a good point though,
over 25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Some organizations believe it to be around 40%
That means that there is an extremely high likelihood that a woman has had a miscarriage, and not even known she was pregnant to begin with.
This is not a matter of opinion. This is science. A fertilized egg is not even a pregnancy, let alone a person.
I never did address Elizabeth up there. Have you ever seen that show about women who never knew they were pregnant until they gave birth? I'm not saying I believe most of those stories, however, because of them your logic doesn't stand. By your logic. should we allow those women an abortion if they find out at 36 weeks? Should we allow them to have the baby killed at birth if they didn't have a chance to abort sooner?
As someone who has been pregnant three times, it would be rather hard to genuinely NOT KNOW that you're pregnant before 12 weeks. Most doctors consider 14 weeks the end of the first trimester, however. Beyond that point, it really seems like we're creeping dangerously close to the point where a born fetus could potentially survive. I think the end of the first trimester is the point at which we're still dealing with the undeveloped beginnings of a person and that's a safe cut-off point.
Holy moley! This is insane! I agree with Renee. Back up off this subject... it isn't anyone's choice but the mother's.
although I believe the father should have a say as well. After all, it's his child too.
The baby has no rights? The father has no rights? What planet do you live on?
I remember the women in my mother's generation (the depression/WW2) - telling stories of being on the delivery table out cold for a C -section and the doctor calls in the husband and the two of them decide the wife should get her tubes tied because she was having twins and was 40 years old and they didn't feel she could handle the stress of more kids and she woke up having had the decision to have any more children taken away from her. Another women's husband told her to get an illegal abortion because they could not afford another mouth to feed.This type of story where a husband or father decided their life decisions was fairly common at that period in history. I can still remember the pain in these women's voices that someone else took their choice from them - and in all of these cases it was the right to have more children - but it was still the fact that someone else made these decisions about their reproductive rights. I would not want the "state" /government to interfere in my personal choice.Go Ron Paul!
Katheryn:
I favor giving women the exact same reproductive rights as men. Certainly, that should be acceptable.
Pvblics, yes, men should be able to terminate any pregnancies they carry. There are trans men so I'm not being sarcastic. Simply put though, pregnancy is a physical phenomenon that happens to a person and they should be the one to make the decisions about their own body.
Both men and women have some control (usually except in the case of rape of course) in conception and then have certain rights when they have children ( while they must support their children they don't have to be in their child's lives ). I do think men should have more rights with their children then they currently get (equal custody should be the default), but that doesn't extend to children that don't exist yet and certainly not to other people's bodies no more then you can force others to give live-organ donations.
KatherynBrandy, Ron Paul is pro-life. Might be time to do your candidate homework. He is for legislating a woman's right to choose.
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/
So, now we have a new way to disquise murder of the unborn. Josef Mengele would be proud of all your conieving schemes to cover up murder. But, be not deceived God knows.
randyk, Josef Mengele worked for Adolf Hitler, who made abortion a capital crime, even in occupied countries.
Hey Randy, perhaps you should volunteer to give up some of your civil rights before you argue against those of others.
Hhhmm Toasty...according to Randy's comment, clearly he believes the unborn are human beings and I believe he is standing up for the civil rights of the unborn, not arguing against anyone's civil rights.
PETA believes that cows and pigs deserve the same civil rights as humans - should we bust down the barbecue house and shake down some murderers there?
As someone who cannot have children. Reading this made me sick to my stomach and I threw up in my mouth.
I would recommend some antacid, or some stronger nerves.
Wow Mike...
antskip, why dont you adopt?
Just another reason for the medical community to keep women in the dark- if they can keep a woman from seeing the child who she is about to let the physician kill, then it's easier for her to go through with the abortion and keep their paychecks coming. It's been proven that when a woman sees her baby on the ultrasound, a motherly instinct kicks in, and she no longer wants that baby she's carrying to die at the hands of some stranger. A lot of states had recently enacted this law to allow women to see the child on ultrasound before it dies, and abortion providers were none to happy at the hit their paychecks took. Obviously for the providers, what you can't see, can't hurt you, and they like keeping women uninformed so that they can choose what these women do with their own bodies.
I think you are confusing physicians for hourly workers. They'll make plenty of money anyway.....not all economic communities function the way you personally experience in your day-to-day life.
Cite your sources for that information. Otherwise it just looks like passionate dribble.
Sorry, but you're wrong. Women could always see a sonogram, now it is required by the state that they have to have one and have the doctor repeat government propaganda related to the sonogram. Amazing to me that women in Texas will be required to have the sonogram and government propaganda, but not allowed to know the sex. These types of laws are demeaning to women, it assumes we are all too stupid to know what is happening to our own bodies.
Firstly those laws were not intended to "allow" the woman to see the fetus. The laws were passed to force the women to see the fetus.
Secondly most women who choose to have an abortion are well aware of what they are doing and suffer greatly over the decision they are making. The doctors were not happy with the government telling them how to practice medicine, concerning a LEGAL procedure and they were also not happy about the extra trauma that would be inflicted on their patients.
Why don't you try to get your information from varied sources so you don't sound quite so dim.
Actually, Carise, the states passed laws to FORCE women to look at the ultrasound, while requiring the doctors to repeat a lot of anti-abortion half truths to them.
Txdemo: I know some really wonderful people from Texas, but it always surprises me how draconian the laws are there, from re-written history textbooks to laws on crime and punishment to laws about women.
But of course, former Gov. George W. Bush practiced infanticide in Texas, not allowing premature babies with lung conditions to have the treatments they needed to stay alive.
Actually studies have shown that it has not made any difference if a woman sees a sonogram of the fetus or not if she was coming in for an abortion in the first place. See the header above.
It is my understanding that they get to go in with a lot of pro-abortion half-truths to salve their conscience (e.g. "just a blob of tissue.) I am not aware of the doctors being given any script to recite. So, at the heart of it, we have these women being compelled to look at their victims before killing them. Quite frankly, I don't have a problem with that. It takes away the lie and pretense that we are not dealing with a human. As for the claim that it does not make a difference: If it didn't have an impact on the bottom line, the pro-abortion groups would be quite willing to offer the token gesture, just as they are willing to offer the token gesture of saying they want abortion to be "rare" when they preserve it being as common as they can.
USA isn't Asia.
Maybe the US is becoming like Asia. How does that feel?
It's not.
When will women all over the world be able to say NO? Mostly now they are afraid and it is dangerous to be strong enough to say NO. I don't believe that most women no matter what their culture would abort over gender without the horrendous outside pressure and danger that they face today. Women need to be valued, but first women need to value themselves and still be able to remain safe! to protect their unborn daughters!!!
Talk about throwing fuel to the fire! Abortion, being such a sensitive issue as it is, now has this in the mix. I don't think it's really the doctor's responsibility to control what a woman does with her fetus. It's the doctor's responsibility to advise a woman of her medical rights and any health risks her pregnancy may cause. Their job is to help educate a woman about what's best for her life, her family and her situation.
That being said, abortion for gender selection is completely unethical. However, this is a cultural issue. Making laws that prevent doctors from revealing the sex of the baby would not help this situation at all. I know it sounds horrible, but wouldn't that just create a 'black market' of doctors who are willing to tell you the sex of the baby, for the right price?
Either way, this should be about education.
Yeah. I agree they have no right to tell you what to do or prevent the abortion. They should have the right to csll someone shallow or ignorant enough to abort solely based upon sex an amoral monster. If you killed a child you wanted to have solely because she didn't have a cock, you are an animal and deserve to be spit on and banished from civilized society.
Maybe we should provide abortions for any reason at all but bundle a hysterectemy and castration for reasons like this. People this stupid and cruel should not be allowed to breed. After all, we don't allow people who abandon their pets to adopt another one...
A hysterectomy can create other chronic diseases, and a woman who is being abuse by husband and their families should not have to go through that. However, it could be quietly suggested to her that she could have her tubes tied while in there, and she wouldn't have to have another unwanted child, male or female.
Do you think I give a sh!t about the human waste that decided to throw her baby away because it didn't have a dick? If we are lucky, she will die of a horrible festering infection. I meant a mandatory sterilization of her and the waste of an egg that impregnated her.
Wow! How truly disgusting we have become that a woman can legally murder her child if it's not exactly what she wants.
Phoenix, this has little to do with what a woman WANTS and more to do with what her husband WANTS.
Why should any doctor even consider it is their place to prevent sex selection abortion if they perform abortion beyond life or death situtation? Liberals think it is ok to get women rights to do as they please including getting knocked up and then getting rid of the nuisance. They don't care about the rights of an unborn innocent child --- which they say isn't a human anyway but a thing, a fetus. So what should it matter to abort a thing? Why are doctors trying to control who and for what reason anyone gets an abortion? What give a woman the right to murder an innocent child --- her flesh and blood? Anyone who has had or caused an abortion is no better than Casey Anthony.
What about cases of rape and incest, would you force a woman to go through the full term when she has been physically and emotionally scarred? You do know that it can take years for her to fully recover from that right? and yet you and others like you would still force her to go through with it. Do the religious even think about the consequences of that would be?
Good points, huntercd. Not to mention that pregnancy and childbirth are not risk-free. Apparently, TheTruth would force a woman to risk her live to carry her rapist's child. Why does the fetus have more rights than the mother?
A human is more than the sum of it's biological components. An embryo has no organs, no neural system, no consciousness, and certainly none of the cognitive properties by which we assign person-hood rights. It certainly has the potential to become a full-fledged human as it is in an inchoate form, but since when do we equate future states with the present state? Do I have a doctorate in Physics now because one day I plan to attain one? Am I alive because I am alive now or am I dead now because being dead is an unavoidable future state?
And do you call a circuit board a computer if assembly has just started but won't finish any time soon?
An embryo requires months of incubation to be viable outside the womb. Since it receives nutrients, external temperature regulation, protection, and assistance removing wastes it's no more independent than unjoined gametes. This is all to say, of course, that if abortion is tantamount to murder, then a male not having sex is tantamount to genocide. We produce ~85 million sperm per day (per testicle), all of which contain half of the genetic information needed to make a perfectly normal baby boy or girl, if only I had the heart find them all homes.
Drawing a line as to when to assign a living thing person-hood rights is necessary, but to do so at an arbitrary cellular milestone because of its potential to presumably reach some other milestone by which we actually see higher level cognitive functioning or some other attribute by which we call it human isn't very convincing. Or at least not to scientists. And if DNA is what makes us "human," do we call chimps 98.5% human, too? They do, after all, share that much of their DNA with us.
By the way, what's called conception isn't the beginning of anything. Gametes are alive inasmuch as an embryo is alive. Conception is just one of many, many milestones that need to be reached before we finally have something which everyone agrees is human.
What about the fact that the "fetus" or "embryo" has a heart beat? Calling it a different name or using the technical terms. Does change the fact that it's a human being with a beating heart.
sosad, A beating heart doesn't mean its a "person"
If so, do you want to give citizenship to a person where they are conceived?
Noah, you are exactly correct.
sosadtohear - the circulatory system is one of the first systems to develop in vertebrates because organisms more then four cells thick need to have some kind of system to bring in cell nutrients and eliminate cell waste. The formation of a heart is very cool indeed.
Regardless, there isn't much difference between a human embryo and a mouse embryo at that stage - are mouse embryos somehow sacred now?
The unborn do not have rights.
Fetus is the correct term.
If you know any women who are murdering children, call the authorities immediately. Otherwise, an abortion isn't murder and the SCOTUS gave women that right to choose. So take it up with them.
Cardiac cells are capable of "beating." But that does not make it a functioning heart, or a human being yet.
what next DNA test for blond hair and blue eyes. Let women make their own choices.Doctors are there to inform not to pass judgment.
Americans want to cry about a few marines urinating on some taliban terrorist, but it is ok for women to murder her unborn child? You people are twisted. the only thing those marines did wrong was not pull there pants down and crap in there mouth. And if you think abortion is ok I hope you die a similar death and some one urinates on your carcus.
Why the hate?
You have serious issues dude....serious issues. I'm a Marine - and I don't stand for torture, and I don't stand for abuse or prisoners. God help us man - you don't know what we're becoming because of this war...you just don't know.
I think abortion is a safe and wonderful alternative to carrying an unwanted pregnancy. As long as the procedure is performed early and in a safe environment, I have absolutely no moral or ethical problem with it whatsoever.
I do, however, think it's pretty reprehensible for anyone who represents the USA to behave in such a hideous manner while wearing a United States military uniform. They don't have to invent reason to hate us. We manage to do that all on our own.
well i think it would be a good idea to control it. having an abortion just because of the gender is pathetic!
Most reasonable HUMAN beings think that the Holocaust in Germany was deplorable, yet we have the American Holocaust killing millions of unborn HUMANS. The Holocaust in Germany pales to the one going on in America! Womens Rights? What about Babies rights? What about human rights?
We are talking about human rights... The right for a woman to do what she wants with her body!
Please cite your source for that number.
has everyone forgotten WHY abortion is legal???
Yes, and she is told at the wedding to lay down for her man, and she can not abort like in some countries up until the day before real birth (CH), so the human rights here for the woman is pretty low!
I would not compare Germany to this, unless you want to compare 1,2 million dead in Iraq--or are they just Muslims, think about all the children with no parents after all our killings!?----Or do you want to go the other way? a normal woman lays an egg almost every month for 30 years should she have 40 children?
--You are right most of this blog is stupid, and no one elses business!
Because, making it illegal doesn't stop abortions. It just makes them riskier for the mother. Thank you for reminding us of the key question, Kim.
They do not have rights until they're born, and certainly none which overrides the rights of the woman in question.
Having grown up an unwanted child (even when my sex was known) I am torn here. Sadly, given what I have been through, and what I continue to live with, I would have preferred being aborted to being born.
That said there should be a way for the child to be adopted, if the parents don't want the child. Furthermore the 'parents' may want to consider getting snipped, or tied/sterilized to prevent another 'unwanted child'.
You are NOT unwanted! The Creator willed you into existence, and with Him, a whole host of heavenly beings leaped with shouts of joy the day you were conceived. You are loved and wanted.
Too bad the only 'beings' that leapt with joy, were the ones that sat idle while I was abused in all sorts of ways. I even lived in an ophanage for a time. It would have been nice if the creator willed me into an actual existance. Yeah I know there is always someone worse off than me. I personally wish people would think long and hard before having children. It would have saved me years of sadness, anger, humility, and frustration.
flbikerchick
"There are far too many methods available to prevent an unwanted pregnancy in the first place, so any woman who allows herself to become pregnant when she doesn't want to be has no excuse. Get yourself on the pill, get an IUD, keep a box of condoms in the bedside stand, whatever."
My second child came into being due to a broken condom. There is such a thing as birth control failure. While I do not regret having him, there are many that wouldn't have been in the same position as I to make the choice to keep him.
As for gender selection - My plan was to have one child and it was to be a girl. Best laid plans! Three sons later, I never did have my daughter. Again I never would have chosen abortion so I could get the sex I wanted. But that would be my choice. I think for the most part gender based abortions are cultural. My personal opinion, is they are wrong. But I respect the sanctity of women's choice, so long as it is their choice and not being forced on them. I would never tell another woman she could not have an abortion.
I had a tough childhood too. However, my present life has nothing to do with my childhood. If you can, talk to others, or a therapist. Find things that interest you. Your life is valuable, not because you were conceived, but because you can find things that are meaningful for you now. I would include religion, but not a superficial religion. I would hope that people read your posts and think a little bit. The world population is so large now that there are many who struggle to find meaning; the problem will not go away. We must reach out to eachother and make a better world. Look at Brazil: it is finding out that dignity and love can be found in small families. As an individual, take small steps. As a world we won't have this luxury for long.
Casreader
I was an unwanted child as well and feel the same way as you, I wish I had been aborted. What's so great about life? I have to be in therapy and on medication just to function at a low level. I am happy for the people who are glad they were born, though. It's good that the vast majority of people feel that way.
Your having been an "unwanted child" may have affected your outlook on life, but plenty of "unwanted" children grow up to live full and happy lives. There's no correlation. Conversely, "wanted" children can turn out to have unhappy lives.
You live. That in itself is a gift, despite the manner in which you were brought into the world, yet you wish that you had been aborted? Whatever you personal problems, and unless you the biggest sub-human jerk on the face of the planet, your life has touched others in positive ways, often in ways that you aren't aware of. You would be missed.
For the many who are unwanted children and live productive lives later on, it does not eliminate the pain suffered. Were abortion illegal I think the rates of child abuse would skyrocket. Do we want to condemn these children to miserable lives with parents who never wanted them? Once they are born society doesn't want to deal with them anyway. They end up becoming some sad article on this website about a kid getting killed by their own parent. I think women need to be able to choose. I think in most cases most of them would choose life anyway. Treating them like cattle does not fix the problem. Not educating women about the dangers on unwanted pregnancy and STD is not going to be preventing their "sinful ways" anyway. I think young men need to be more involved into these conversations. It can't all be on the mother. Once they get a girl pregnant maybe just disappear while the women are held responsible for every desperate decision and condemned by society to be either a murderer or a worthless welfare mother leaching off society.
Can't change the past, there is no present, all we have is the future. I don't live in the past, it's not worth it. It is however what I am built on. It is my foundation.
Fortunately I am well aware of how much my life touches others. The only thing that truely keeps me going is that I am able to help others cope, and deal with things we went through in common. There are others out there, they are not alone. That being said I am unable to live a 'normal' life. Giving in would only let the people that took my childhood, also take my life. I will not let them win.
So yes Nikolaus20, your comment is exactly what drives me, and keeps me going. Is my outlook a result of my childhood, or would I have had the same 'personality' regardless? I'm not qualified to answer. Either way, it's good for others that I was born, and I definately make the best of everyday!
The next thing you know, doctors like this will advocate against telling parents about fetal abnormalities for fear of causing women to get an abortion.
If we give in to this line of reasoning, when will it end?
Hi, Sheilah, I've got news for you. In Idaho, there is already a sickening law that disallows parents of children with genetic abnormalities from suing doctors who withheld this information from them.
If it weren't for abortion, I'd still be paying child support! Whew!
Q... Why do women wear makeup and perfume?
A... Because they're ugly and they stink!
One other thing we're all forgetting; just like 1% of abortions actually are products of rape, the likelihood of this type of situation (abortion gender selection based on religious beliefs, customs, etc) more than likely accounts for very few abortions and is rare.