• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Law 'does not prohibit' sex-selection abortions, DPP warns

Lutherf

Lutherf

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
47,620
Reaction score
53,273
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Law 'does not prohibit' sex-selection abortions, DPP warns - Telegraph

It has today emerged that the BMA issued guidance for doctors about sex selective abortion.


It stated: "It is normally unethical to terminate a pregnancy on the grounds of fetal sex alone.”


However, it then continues: “The pregnant woman’s views about the effect of the sex of the fetus on her situation and on her existing children should nevertheless be carefully considered.”


“In some circumstances doctors may come to the conclusion that the effects are so severe as to provide legal and ethical justification for a termination,” concludes the guidance.
Click to expand...

Just wait until the doctors can figure out whether an unborn baby is gay or prone to alcohol abuse. It'll be a field day.

Hey ladies! If you don't like the bun in your oven then step on up and we'll fix it so you can try again!
 
Of course, it's a fundamental human right that a woman can choose the sex of her baby. :roll:
 
As much as I hate abortions, the mother's right to her body trumps that of a fetus and I will always believe that.
 
Lutherf said:
Law 'does not prohibit' sex-selection abortions, DPP warns - Telegraph

Just wait until the doctors can figure out whether an unborn baby is gay or prone to alcohol abuse. It'll be a field day.

Hey ladies! If you don't like the bun in your oven then step on up and we'll fix it so you can try again!
Click to expand...

Luther,

Another "Christian Legal Center" outrage. My oh my...what a surprise.

And while we all know that if anything is possible it will happen, it doesn't mean that such an event is the rule rather than the exception.

I suspect that if and when sexual orientation is determine by a DNA test of some kind, it will be just a likely that it might also be possible to do some genetic alterations and change any sexual orientation. And genetically predisposed alcoholics or addicts revealed by some testing procedure would also be a candidate for a little DNA splicing.

So the ethical question that might more often come into play is: Should DNA alterations be allowed to occur to change sexual orientation...prevent diseases, or even potential addictions in an individual's future?

But the poor little embryo/early stage fetus might be saved. I bet the DPP is made up of mostly men.
 
Abortion has always been a questionable and difficult issue for me to have a firm stance on, but I believe I would support laws that would make it illegal to terminate a fetus for reasons like sex, sexual orientation, or other factors if one day we are able to determine such things prior to birth. The thought of that sickens me.
 
As much as I will support a woman's right to make a choice about abortion, I really, really dislike the idea that someone would choose to abort based on gender.

And as Removable Mind noted, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is the rule...

As long as abortion is available (note I didn't say legal) the world may never know exactly what the reason is for making that choice. We can pin anything on it that makes it sound horrendous, but only the woman knows the true reasons.
 
Wiseone said:
Abortion has always been a questionable and difficult issue for me to have a firm stance on, but I believe I would support laws that would make it illegal to terminate a fetus for reasons like sex, sexual orientation, or other factors if one day we are able to determine such things prior to birth. The thought of that sickens me.
Click to expand...

It might be a more obvious reason for aborting for reasons related to tests that revealed sexual orientation or potential addict, or some eventual disease that's like to occur.

But it wouldn't take long for those who abort because of sex...to just not reveal to a medical provider the reason for the abortion. Why? Most likely, the political members, churches, and all who oppose abortion would be screaming bloody murder...literally. So to avoid harassment...just don't give a reason...if one was required for an abortion.

As of now, 1st trimester can be performed no questions or reasons necessary...as it should be.
 
Last edited:
Lutherf said:
Law 'does not prohibit' sex-selection abortions, DPP warns - Telegraph



Just wait until the doctors can figure out whether an unborn baby is gay or prone to alcohol abuse. It'll be a field day.

Hey ladies! If you don't like the bun in your oven then step on up and we'll fix it so you can try again!
Click to expand...

something for you Luther for your op.

for decades now the USA [government and human rights groups] has complained to china for it sex selections of abortion, based on the millions of girls are being aborted in favor of males, even many woman's rights groups of the past...... have stated their outrage over this practice, are now those same women's rights groups going to reverse their positions, and support sex selection abortions?

edit: sex selections because of one child policy.
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
something for you Luther for your op.

for decades now the USA [government and human rights groups] has complained to china for it sex selections of abortion, based on the millions of girls are being aborted in favor of males, even many woman's rights groups of the past...... have stated their outrage over this practice, are now those same women's rights groups going to reverse their positions, and support sex selection abortions?
Click to expand...

China was pretty much my first thought when I read this. Maybe we should consider allowing the binding of infants feet too. I mean, hell, who wants their little girl to gave big feet?
 
The sort of people who would abort a fetus because it's gay are also the sort of people against abortion in the first place, so I don't think this will be much of an issue.

However, the law is not well-characterized here. It's true that the law "does not prohibit" sex-selection abortions, but it also doesn't prohibit "for ****s and giggles" abortions. The reason for an abortion is not a factor in America's current abortion policy. (before certain cutoff dates, anyway)
 
An elective abortion is an elective abortion. I'm not sure why this would effect anyone's stance on the issue.
 
Wiseone said:
Abortion has always been a questionable and difficult issue for me to have a firm stance on, but I believe I would support laws that would make it illegal to terminate a fetus for reasons like sex, sexual orientation, or other factors if one day we are able to determine such things prior to birth. The thought of that sickens me.
Click to expand...

You *do* realise that women would just lie about their reasons, right?

I don't understand why some think abortion should be allowed for one reason, but not another. Either it's okay or it's not.
 
TheNextEra said:
Doesn't matter, a person should have a right to their own body and what happens to it.

Don't like it, tough.
Click to expand...

And a baby should have a right to live. Sure a woman should be able to do with her own body what she wants, but she isn't doing something to her body, she is doing something to a baby, killing it.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
And a baby should have a right to live. Sure a woman should be able to do with her own body what she wants, but she isn't doing something to her body, she is doing something to a baby, killing it.
Click to expand...

Sorry but no, if it's in the woman's body, it's her choice. Forcing a woman to carry to term is forcing her to do something with her body she doesn't want. You're not going to convince me otherwise.
 
TheNextEra said:
Sorry but no, if it's in the woman's body, it's her choice. Forcing a woman to carry to term is forcing her to do something with her body she doesn't want. You're not going to convince me otherwise.
Click to expand...

Then we are back to she shouldn't have had sex.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom