To think abortion law is a tough nut to crack?

[chandellina]

so the Telegraph has revealed doctors allowing abortion on sex-selection grounds. I see a couple threads on In the News expressing disgust over this, a view shared by many, I'm sure.

But as far as I understand you can have an abortion on demand for just about any reason - not feeling able to cope, not feeling financially secure, too young, too old.

So even if you were terminating for gender, couldn't you just give another reason? And if you believe in a woman's absolute right to choose - why require a stated reason at all?

My point is that the law seems very flimsy, and why be moral about sex selection and not other things - like terminating because a pregnancy interferes with a desired age gap between children, or it otherwise not being "the right time." I know there are cultural issues involved too with gender selection, but those probably are also in play for women coerced by family not to have a child out of wedlock, etc.

thoughts?

Well obviously I totally disagree when 'what's going on inside other people's bodies' is another person.

"I know some one who has had 7 abortions because she she is an irresponsible arse refuses or is too lazy to use some form of contraception."

Okay if we refused her an abortion what would be the outcome? A reluctant crap mother bringing up her child? Because I can't believe that someone who used abortion in this way would actually be a good mother tbh

Exactly Remains. we as a society do draw boundaries of acceptable behaviour.

Which is more acceptable? Allowing abortion legally, on demand, or forcing women to carry and give birth to a child they did not want / forcing them down the route of illegal and dangerous abortions? I know which is more acceptable to me....

Re: sex - I agree with the above poster that "they should withhold the info unless there are sound medical reasons".

I wanted to know the sex at the 20 week scan, and did find out, but I would happily have waited if not telling people could avoid aborting the "wrong" sex.

Then again, I wouldn't want to be the unwanted baby of the wrong sex...

It's not OK to do it to a child that has been born because it has thoughts and feelings. It all depends on when you think life begins, my personal belief is that it is until the baby has been born it is not 'alive'

My personal belief it that it's 'alive' from the moment of conception. How can one say a baby does not have thoughts and feelings in the womb.

"just because the birth mother doesn't want the baby doesn't mean that no one will want it."

How in the world is it okay to force a woman to be a baby-producing machine for somebody else? Because that's effectively what you're doing if deny an abortion to a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy. How is it okay to "save" that collection of cells/baby's llife and in all likelihood totally and utterly screw up the mental health of the woman concerned? Thattheory will always seem to me to be an attempt to control and, just as bad, punish the pregnant woman.

Well im probably going to get flamed but sometimes I wish, for certain circumstances, contraceptives were mandatory.

"My personal beliefit that it's 'alive' from the moment of conception. How can one say a baby does not have thoughts and feelings in the womb."

The highlighted bit. In my view it doesn't in the very early stages as it's physically incapable.

If you'd abort on the basis of sex you shouldn't be getting pregnant really.

stranded I'm referring more to those who think a baby should be aborted up until birth. I believe in the later stages of pregnancy a baby is aware and has some thoughts, feeling and connection to it's mother.

But is wanting a well rounded family of boys and girls worse than wanting to finish your masters degree child free, or wanting a bigger age gap between children?

They have proven a baby in the womb can feel pain.

I don't understand how anyone can put the "rights" of an embryo or foetus above the rights of a person who has already been on the planet for at least a decade.

They have proven that post-pubescent females can feel pain, remains.

I wouldn't put the rights of an unborn baby above a person, but i wouldn't place these rights second neither. Just as my partner has no more rights than me just because he is 5 years older!

'By 8 weeks after fertilization, the unborn child reacts to touch. By 20 weeks post-fertilization, the unborn child reacts to stimuli that would be recognized as painful if applied to an adult human?for example, by recoiling. Surgeons entering the womb to perform corrective procedures on unborn children have seen those babies flinch, jerk and recoil from sharp objects and incisions. In addition, ultrasound technology shows that unborn babies at 20 weeks and earlier react physically to outside stimuli such as sound, light and touch.'

I wouldn't propose giving unborn children rights yet it does seem hard going that many don't get a chance for pretty weak reasons. But I don't pretend to have an answer and I am generally pro choice.

"I find lots of things others do to be utterly mind boggling, however its not my business to control other peoples lives."

This is illogical.

So much of how society is arranged is as a direct result of the moral compass of in some cases a few people, in some cases the majority of people, but certainly as a result of someone's moral compass. Almost every law (and certainly criminal law) is bourne out of what someone, somewhere thinks is "right" and "wrong".

Most of us personally do not control other people's lives becasue we find something they do mind boggling (ie wrong in our eyes), but that is exactly the process which happens in someone's mind - whether they are in that position by election (ie for law deriving from legislation) or not (ie for case law - judges). This is how our society works.

Our society controls people's lives to a very significant degree becasue their actions are "mind boggling" (wrong, morally) to someone (usually, to be fair, the majority - I appreciate that the abortion debate is likely to be more even in terms of people on either side of the debate than, say, rape, where the vast majority would find it morally abhorrent). That normally coincides with the fact that it is also in society as a whole's interest to pass any given legislation and/or draw that conclusion from the facts before the court/interpret the legislation (ie public interest reasons, including economic, as well as moral reasons).

I am not prepared to even begin to go into the abortion debate here, but be logical at least!

But is wanting a well rounded family of boys and girls worse than wanting to finish your masters degree child free, or wanting a bigger age gap between children?

Well, yes, if you assume that the family have gotten pregnant on purpose in the hope of getting one sex or the other and when it's the wrong one they abort. It's hardly likely that they'd say "oops it was an accident, but we'll wait until 20wks to see if it's a girl and that'll decide me whether I finish my masters or not".

I would imagine that someone who got pregnant by accident at the wrong time wouldn't give a flying fig about the sex.

So - what do you propose?

That Doctors basically say 'well I don't believe you so, sorry, you have to carry this baby you don't want to term'?

Most people don't have an abortion on a whim. MOST abortions take place before the sex of the potential baby is known.