Should a pregnant mother be free to choose to abort her fetus because it is female? What if the situation were reversed and the mother chose to abort the fetus because it was male? Does this news story have any relevance the abortion debate in the U.S.?
The question is difficult to answer. In the excerpt, it is apparent such a practice is a danger to the population. It is also apparent that the desire to have a son as opposed to a daughter is grossly perverted by religious belief. If such beliefs were non-existent, it is difficult to determine the outcome of such a freedom of choice.
I would have to agree with Dorky here, although there’s one other thing to point out. The only fully reliable procedure to determine the gender of the fetus as far as I know is amniocentesis, and that is usually done in the second trimester. An ultrasound done earlier than that would also have some difficulty in disclosing gender-specific physical characteristics. So abortion because of gender could not be done in the early stages of the pregnancy, and that is when abortion is, or should be, least controversial.
If one supports the woman’s right to choose unconditionally in the matter of abortion, one has to accept that she may choose to abort the fetus because it isn’t the gender she wants. This isn’t a reason for abortion that is usually discussed here. Often the pro-choice advocates will mention the life or health of the mother. Catastrophic birth defects is another more easily justifiable reason. Why bring a child into the world to endure a life of unrelenting suffering? Down’s syndrome is somewhat more controversial, but is a common reason to test and abort if detected. A woman impregnated by rape is often thought to be justified to abort. But gender preference? What about hair or eye color? What if the reason is that the birth date is expected to interfere with a previously planned vacation? While I support a woman’s right to choose, I may disagree and even deplore her reason for choosing to abort.
I don’t know how abortion would threaten the Indian population. They are over-populated. Unfortunately they addressing the issue on a sexist basis. This seems similar to what is occuring in China where female infants are often killed. The right to choose abortion is a women’s right issue in the US. Doesn’t it seem ironic that in India they are “choosing” to abort females? I wonder how the women there feel about it. Are they pressured to abort females because it is a patriarchal society?
The slogan “every child a wanted child,” often used by choice advocates, is still as true in this case as in the rape case. If a child is going to be born to a family that resents her for being female, into a society that devalues women to the point of paying to be rid of them, it is crueller to force the child to be born.
It a symptom of a deplorable bias, and the bias should be addressed, but it is useless to restrict the action.
When the suggested solution to an act of heinous discrimination is to, in effect, murder those discriminated against to prevent their continued discrimination, I can only shake my head in disgusted disbelief that we are still such barbaric cowards that this question is even being asked.
Is your disbelief at the question based on your opinion that women should be allowed to abort unconditionally? Or is it because you think that women should not be allowed to abort at all? Or is it because you think that women should not be allowed to abort based on gender preference? Who are the barbaric cowards? The ones who abort based on gender preference? Me for asking the question? The one who opined that abortion is preferrable to an unwanted life? All of the above?
… 
I agree with you Carleas. I believe in a woman’s right to choose in this matter. But, the news story raises disturbing questions. Since gender cannot be determined prior to conception, the prospective parents are using abortion as the primary means of birth control. I consider it to be the least preferable means. The primary means should be contraception, in my opinion. Eliminating gender-bias would eliminate the need to abort on this basis.
There is also the problem of coercion. How many Indian “choose†to abort because they are forced to by their husband, their family or society in general? I don’t have any information on this issue, but I suspect that it is often the case.
A third issue stems from your response. Is it enough to say that it’s useless to restrict the act? If endemic sexism is the basis for aborting based on gender as I have asserted above, then the ethical thing to do is work to eliminate sexism. What are the best ways to go about that? How can that be done in India?
Hi felixDaKat. You said; â€Should women be free to abort based on gender preference?
No. Women and men should not be allowed the right or opportunity to kill (abort) a child in the womb regardless of the “nation†in which it occurs and regardless of the gender of the child. Abortion is wrong and should be rejected by all decent and moral societies (and individuals). In the example you refer to, the “gender†based flavor of the abortion adds an additional veneer of sexist revulsion to the travesty of abortion itself.
The fact that the “sex†of the child can be determined by technology demonstrates yet again - without a doubt - that the so-called “fetus†is a human being already identifiably “gendered†and very much a living human being (as she has been from the moment of her conception). If the child in the human womb was not a human being it could not have a “gender.â€
Unintelligent and hypocritical feminists who lust and cry out for abortion are – by definition – assaulting and aggressing upon women since about half of all abortions kill a female baby. passion
I appreciate your opinion on this issue as I did that of Carleas’. For me, the article I pasted raised an objectionable aspect of abortion which I was previously unaware. I posted it because I thought it thought provoking. As I pointed out in my previous post, I think it is objectionable that these folks are using this as a method of birth control after conception.
As a male citizen of the United States it is unlikely that I will ever be in a position to make an actual decision about abortion one way or another. So it would be easy for me to agree with you that abortion under any circumstances is absolutely wrong. I can say that I would never have an abortion myself, but the issue is hypothetical for me since I am not a woman.
When men say they are against abortion, I don’t completely discount it. But I think it is kind of a cheap ethical issue for a man to make. If a woman says she is against it, it means more to me, particularly if the woman is talking about herself. On the other hand, a woman can give birth to a child and yet not take responsibility for the child. That seems unconscionable. That impacts other people. I respect your opinion. I hope you respect mine.
The issue about when a child becomes a human being doesn’t seem resolvable. In situations where the life or suffering of the mother is at stake I think we may be able to decide on behalf of the mother. I say this because I don’t remember anything that occurred in the womb and I doubt that anyone else does either. On the other hand I have respect for the unborn infant as I do for any other living being.
I think that feminist’s cry out for the right to choose whether to choose to give birth or to abort for themselves. I doubt that even the parents of the unborn infants who choose to abort based on gender “lust†to do so as you have described it. As I stated above there may be coercion involved particularly where the mothers are involved. I wouldn’t think that would be acceptable to you either. I hope we are all here to think, discuss and learn from one another.
Hi felixDaKat. Thank you for your comments. You said; â€When men say they are against abortion, I don’t completely discount it. But I think it is kind of a cheap ethical issue for a man to make.
If abortion wasn’t the taking of a human life I could see your point. But, abortion is the taking of life therefore it is an issue that all should deliberate over. As I see it, the only thing cheap and unethcial about abortion is the horror of abortion itself.
You said; †The issue about when a child becomes a human being doesn’t seem resolvable.â€
It has already been resolved by science, genetics, and biology. There is no doubt any longer that a human life begins at the exact moment of conception; which is the exact moment when the child is vested with 46 human chromosomes (the exact human genome).
You said; †I don’t remember anything that occurred in the womb and I doubt that anyone else does either.â€
You don’t’ remember anything that occurred to you when you were six months old (out of the womb) either, or a year old, or even two years old. Surely you wouldn’t suggest that a six month old, one year old, or two year old (et al) can be aborted (killed) because they are incapable of remembering anything from that time of their development. Obviously, memory does not define life. An adult person suffering from amnesia does not remember anything and they are no less a human being because of it. Adults suffering from Alzheimer’s disease don’t remember much and they too are no less a human being because of it.
You said; †I doubt that even the parents of the unborn infants who choose to abort based on gender “lust†to do so as you have described it.
Abortion is the singular most important issue for modern feminists and their agenda. Modern feminism claims to be supporters and protectors of females as a class. That is precisely what it means to be a “feminist.†Yet, about half of the millions of abortions kill baby girls! This is an indisputable fact. Yet, baby girls are part of the female class whom the modern feminists claim to represent and protect. Therefore, by definition it is illogical for feminists to claim they are protecting the female class while simultaneously promoting the killing of baby girls with abortion. It is illogical and hypocritical on its face. If you think that I’m wrong, please tell me why. Please note that early feminists – that is to say true feminists such as Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were vehemently opposed to abortion.
You said; †I hope we are all here to think, discuss and learn from one another.â€
Absolutely felixDaKat. Free and open dialogue is how we all learn and grow; and I appreciate your thoughts very much. passion
Hi felixDaKat. Thank you for your comments. You said; â€When men say they are against abortion, I don’t completely discount it. But I think it is kind of a cheap ethical issue for a man to make.
If abortion wasn’t the taking of a human life I could see your point. But, abortion is the taking of life therefore it is an issue that all should deliberate over. As I see it, the only thing cheap and unethcial about abortion is the horror of abortion itself.
I have noticed that many male opponents of abortion are persons who have no other discernable interest in the pain and suffering of others. So I have asked myself why? After much observation and deliberation, I have concluded that it a power issue. If they can remove a woman’s reproductive rights it puts them one up. One has only to think of men and woman competing in the contemporary work place to see what an advantage this would be for them. Beyond that , many strongest male opponents of abortion are those who seek political advantage by appealing to the religious right.
[i]You said; †The issue about when a child becomes a human being doesn’t seem resolvable.â€
It has already been resolved by science, genetics, and biology. There is no doubt any longer that a human life begins at the exact moment of conception; which is the exact moment when the child is vested with 46 human chromosomes (the exact human genome). [/i]
Surely you are aware that there is a lot of disagreement about this issue?
You [i]said; †I don’t remember anything that occurred in the womb and I doubt that anyone else does either.â€
You don’t’ remember anything that occurred to you when you were six months old (out of the womb) either, or a year old, or even two years old. Surely you wouldn’t suggest that a six month old, one year old, or two year old (et al) can be aborted (killed) because they are incapable of remembering anything from that time of their development. Obviously, memory does not define life. An adult person suffering from amnesia does not remember anything and they are no less a human being because of it. Adults suffering from Alzheimer’s disease don’t remember much and they too are no less a human being because of it. [/i]
You have a point there. But I am forced to use my own experience as an index of consciousness. I have no other. Memory is am imperfect record of experience but a primary one that should not be ignored if we are to be self-aware.
Lack of memory reduces suffering. Anesthesiologists administer drugs to erase memory as they do to erase pain. Their goal is to reduce suffering. As a potential patient, it is a goal of which I heartily approve. In a state of lower conscious, less suffering is incurred and that results in less recollection of the suffering. Applied to life in the womb, it may be inferred that the fetus suffers less than a fully conscious adult woman, for instance.
If abortion was the one absolute evil, your arguments would stand. But it isn’t. It is a relative evil which in certain situations must be weighed against other evils to produce an ethical outcome. It is possible to imagine situations in which abortion may be preferable to other outcomes.
By pointing out that infants and Alzheimer’s patients lack memory, you have unwittingly made a case that could be used against them in certain ethical choice situations one can imagine. But, getting back to my memory, it provides a rough estimate of my emerging conscious. I was arguably less conscious during my sojourn in the womb and my early post-natal period. Therefore, any pain I experienced at that time was possibly less acutely experience than it would be when I am fully conscious. Extrapolating from my own memory, I infer that this is true of other fetuses. No one has been able to persuade me otherwise.
[i]You said; †I doubt that even the parents of the unborn infants who choose to abort based on gender “lust†to do so as you have described it.
Abortion is the singular most important issue for modern feminists and their agenda. Modern feminism claims to be supporters and protectors of females as a class. That is precisely what it means to be a “feminist.†Yet, about half of the millions of abortions kill baby girls! This is an indisputable fact. Yet, baby girls are part of the female class whom the modern feminists claim to represent and protect. Therefore, by definition it is illogical for feminists to claim they are protecting the female class while simultaneously promoting the killing of baby girls with abortion. It is illogical and hypocritical on its face. If you think that I’m wrong, please tell me why. Please note that early feminists – that is to say true feminists such as Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were vehemently opposed to abortion. [/i]
The issue of who has reproductive rights is understandably an important issue for feminists. Will this issue be decided by the pregnant woman herself? Her family? Her doctor? A judge? A bureaucrat? A politician?
[i]You said; †I hope we are all here to think, discuss and learn from one another.â€
Absolutely felixDaKat. Free and open dialogue is how we all learn and grow; and I appreciate your thoughts very much. Passion[/i]
I take you at your word. However, I read your arguments with others on a related thread and I notice that your thinking does not appear to have changed a bit. Some of others’ points were excellent. I’m not sure you fully appreciated them. It may be that you are a pro-life zealot who’s only agenda here is to proselytize for your point of view. Even so, at least you are arguing civilly about, which is more than I can say for some on both sides of the issue.
I think there are a lot of ways to combat sexism, Felix. I think the best is the data that have been collected on the effects of more equal societies. Empowering women improves society as a rule. That is hard to argue with, and once people realize that equality is in everyone’s best interest, they are easy to convince to act to achieve it.
Felix, I agree with most of your ideas on abortion. However, I have to disagree that it is only a women’s issue. Men are necessary for birth, and as such are responsible to the child if it is born. Curently, men are financially obligated to children they accidentally create, even if they thing that they are unprepared and would opt for abortion. That doesn’t seem fair.
The issue is sticky because neither side should have say of another person’s body or livelyhood. The only option seems to be to allow men to walk away, and that doesn’t seem fair to women, or a particularly savoury option for the man.
Hi felixdaKat. Thank you for your comments. You said; †I have noticed that many male opponents of abortion are persons who have no other discernable interest in the pain and suffering of others.â€
I’m concerned about the pain, suffering and ultimate death of the baby in the womb through abortion. I’m also concerned about others who suffer but the topic of this thread is abortion so my comments are focused on it.
You said;  much observation and deliberation, I have concluded that it a power issue. If they can remove a woman’s reproductive rights it puts them one up.
The pro-life position does not oppose a woman’s right to reproduce. What it opposes is the woman’s right (so-called) to kill her baby in the womb after reproduction has already taken place. Abortion is not a “reproductive rights†issue. It is a child killing rights issue after reproduction has already taken place. Furthermore, the biological father of the baby has little or no rights whatsoever to prevent an abortion from happening. He is stripped of all his power to prevent it even though it is obvious that he should have a 50% say in the matter. Given this obvious lack of male power directly related to abortion, how could you arrive at the conclusion that males have “one upsmanship” over woman on abortion?
You said; †Beyond that , many strongest male opponents of abortion are those who seek political advantage by appealing to the religious right.â€
Yes, this can be true and has been known to happen. Sadly, there have been opportunist politicians who pander to pro-life minded persons for votes. These are the ones who make promises and then do nothing to stop abortion after they are elected.
You said; †Surely you are aware that there is a lot of disagreement about this issue?â€
There is no doubt that at the moment of conception the child is vested with 46 human chromosomes and this classifies the child as a human being at that moment. No one serious denies this. What is argued sometimes is whether or not “consciousness†exists at conception; as if consciousness were the measure that defines being human which I have argued it is not. For example, anesthetized adults are not conscious yet no one would suggest they weren’t human beings at the time. A person in a coma is not conscious and yet no one would argue that they aren’t human beings at the time.
â€Applied to life in the womb, it may be inferred that the fetus suffers less than a fully conscious adult woman, for instance.
Even if this was true (and I don’t believe it is) what does it matter? Suffering “less†(or even more) does not negate the fact that a killing of a human being occurs with abortion.
You said; †The issue of who has reproductive rights is understandably an important issue for feminists.
It is a fact that half of the babies aborted are female gender. Feminism holds itself out as an ideology that purports to “protect†the rights of females. Yet, feminism promotes abortion which kills female babies. I see this as hypocrisy in the extreme. If you don’t think it is, please tell me why you think it isn’t.
You said;  I read your arguments with others on a related thread and I notice that your thinking does not appear to have changed a bit.â€
This is true. I admit that the overwhelming scientific, genetic and other hard evidence surrounding the beginning of life convinces me that life begins at conception. I’m just astonished at how flippantly the pro-abortionists dismiss the overwhelming scientific, genetic and empirical evidence that is available to us today.
You said; †Some of others’ points were excellent. I’m not sure you fully appreciated them.â€
I read them all and believe that I absorbed them all. That is why I’ve responded to them all.
You said; †It may be that you are a pro-life zealot who’s only agenda here is to proselytize for your point of view.â€
As philosophers we are dedicated to examine the questions of life: for as Socrates said; “an unexamined life is not worth living.†Agendas abound of course. The pro-abortionists have their agenda; where they wish to glorify abortion and yearn to maintain abortion despite the overwhelming scientific evidence that demonstrates the sheer horror of it.
You said; †Even so, at least you are arguing civilly about, which is more than I can say for some on both sides of the issue.â€
Thank you for kind comment felixdaKat. I appreciate it. passion.
But Passion, every flake of skin I shed has 46 chromasomes. Do I commit murder when I bathe? Is amputation murder? Is the removal of cancer murder? It seems clear that having the complete human gene sequence is not enough to make something human.
On the other hand, the mother is clearly human. The father is clearly human*. You seem to putting the well-being of something that is debateably human over the well being of it’s clearly human would-be parents. I don’t see the justification.
Perhaps the issue is of where to derive value in human life. Passion, you seem to take the position that human life is sacred as an end in itself. It would seem that this belief is grounded in religious conviction. I don’t mean this as an ad hominem, rather I mean to say that if this is the source of your belief, it is by no means a universal standard, and people who are not of your religious background will not necessarily define life in the same way, and so will not see your arguments as ‘pro-life.’
Someone who values life in practical terms will see a fetus as a clump of cells that is useless without the mother. If the continued existence of this clump of cells causes undue harm to the mother, the mother’s suffering takes precedence; the decision would be between changes in practical value practical value: If aborted, the fetus would go from possessing no practical value to possessing no practical value; if carried to term, the mother’s practical value would be reduced by some positive amount (due to unhappiness, financial/emotional burden for which she is unprepared, or social rejection).
Surely such systems must strike you as cold, Passion, but they needn’t be. Navigator is clearly using consciousness as the source of value, and as a result seeks to minimize suffering in conscious beings. This is a deeply caring position, though not caring in the same way as a religious position.
*I agree that the father’s input is valuable, but I don’t know that both parents have an equal share in the pregnancy. Surely both are necessary for reproduction, but the woman has the brunt of the physical burden of the pregnancy, and as such might (I am still debating this point with myself) deserve more say.
Surely you jest.
Are you trying to fool others or just yourself with your sophism of omission?
It is the high school textbook fact that those 46 chromosomes are DNA unique, different from the DNA of either the father or mother, yet they are of the genus homo sapiens sapiens and belong to an entity that satisfies all the scientifically determined criteria to be a living being that clearly sets the conceived person apart from the mere cellular components of the mother.
I can’t believe anyone, especially a woman, still succumbs to such elementary school denials.
I also can’t believe that I share a pro-choice alliance with such people.
What planet am I on?!
“Practical” is the wrong term.
The right term is “self-deceptive utilitarian moral relativist”.
Please make a note of it, students.
Scathing, Sabs.
I don’t deny the genetics of a fetus. I am simply pointing out that that point alone does not close the book. There are many non-human things that nevertheless have human genes. Having human genes is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being human.
The definition of life is a hairy issue in science, and there is no consensus. Even assuming that a fetus is alive, there is no consensus that it is human. Humans are generally understood to be a lot of things that a fetus is not, and vice versa. The fetus inhabits a middle ground, and people come down on different sides for different reasons, generally concerning their understanding of life, purpose, and value. It certainly doesn’t seem cut and dry.
By the way, did you want to make an argument about why utilitarianism and moral relativism are self-deceptive, or did you just want to call names? I’m guessing the latter, but let me know if you change your mind.
And I simply pointed out where your omission of relevancy would have been quite appropriate had it not been intentionally omitted.
Which, of course, is meaningless with respect to the topic of the reality of the conceived being a human being.
Did you intentionally try to divert from focusing on the central contention at hand, or was that diversion unintentional?
Again, you just leave it at that.
You’re obviously trying to say that a human being does not begin to live at conception, right?
You could have simply continued with the complete presentation of what a conception is as I did in my previous post, but you didn’t.
Why?
Not true.
Life science has developed, using the scientific method, universally accepted scientific point-by-point criteria about what constitutes a living being.
It’s only a “hairy issue” for utilitarian moral relativists, not for scientists who respect the scientific method.
Again, not from the perspective of the scientific method.
DNA species and person testing is the way we modern reality-respecting folk discern the concensus truth of the matter, Carleas, O.J. Simpson, of course, being a notable skeptic.
(Again, I just can’t believe we’re both pro-choice – I’m beginning to feel more at reality’s home with the pro-lifers!)
The foundational definition in the dictionary of “person” is “a human being”.
I learned that a long time ago.
Though I may be home-schooled, a dictionary is still a dictionary everywhere, and a human being, which a fetus is, is still a person everywhere as well.
Sophism is in the dictionary also, by the way, Carleas.
Indeed – midway between its mom’s head and her ankles.
But not human being definitively.
The fetus is a human being, a person, whether utilitarian moral relativists want it to be or not.
And I should know about moral relativists – considering that I would still abort that person for whatever reason, I guess, in that regard, I qualify as a utilitarian moral relativist!
But, at least I’m honest about it all.
Profound, simply profound.
More specifically, those who truly seek the truth learn that a human being, a person, begins to live at conception.
Those who don’t, apparently don’t.
Oh spare us your pontification, Carleas.
Your “side” of this discussion has nothing to do with your “understanding of life”.
You obviously understand quite well.
You just don’t like what you know is true.
Which is the real reason most “come down on different sides for different reasons” on this topically relevant matter.
Yes, here you’re right.
One’s “purpose and value” may be in conflict with the reality that a human being, a person begins to live at conception.
So, denial sets in to meet their purpose and to spare them value oriented guilt.
A tree is a tree, and not a rock.
When it comes to discerning the nature of truly objectively manifested concrete realities, such as what a conception is by nature, it is most certainly and scientifically cut and dried.
Accurately applied terming is not name calling.
You may not like the appropriate term, but, as you can see, I wear it with you, only subjectively where it’s appropriate, not inappropriately with regard to objective concrete discernments of material reality, where it is merely applied for reasons of sophism.
But if you need to falsely allude to name calling as a failing last argument resort, I understand.
My implied question still stands, Carleas.
Why is it so obviously important to you that a conception not be what it obviously is: a human being, a person?
And please, try not to keep setting off my bullshit detector with your answers.
Maybe you’re detector’s going off because you’re the one holding it. Yeah, I went there. Zing. Back atcha’.
I’m honestly not sure what you think I’m omitting. But allow me to direct you to the Wikipedia entry on life, where multiple definitions of life are explained and discussed. The scientific method does not help determine what life is. ‘Life’ is a word, and scientists have conventionally used it to label various things because it was useful. However, like all definitions, the definition of ‘life’ is fuzzy, and the fuzziness is most apparent around the edges, like say at the very beginning of life.
If it must be personal, Sabrina, let me tell you why I don’t think a fetus should not be called ‘life’, nor a ‘person’. I think that both words are loaded. When you say something is a ‘person’, you might mean it in the very limited sense of ‘human’, but it is most often not understood that way. People associate it with ‘personality’, with agency of some sort. A fetus is most certainly not yet an agent, so to label it with a term that implies agency is confusing. Likewise, to call it life is misleading: it isn’t a stand-alone organism yet, it doesn’t act on its own. What life it has is merely an extension of the life off of which it leeches. To call that ‘life’ is to give the thing too much credit. And when you define ‘person’ to mean merely ‘human’, you omit most of the definition of the word (in particular, definition #4, as relates to philosophy: “a self-conscious or rational being”).
I don’t understand your objection to DNA necessity/sufficiency. I pointed to something that, though containing plenty of human DNA, is generally understood not to be human. Because something like that exists, simply saying that a thing has human DNA is not enough to show that it is a human. So though it is a necessary condition (i.e. something cannot be human without human DNA), it is not a sufficient condition (i.e. there are things that must be accepted as non-human, though they have human DNA).