House Debates Banning Sex-Selective Abortions

[Lief]

People should be able to have abortions for whatever reason they want.

Disgusting. This has my full support.

Gentlemen- when do you support a cutoff?

I don't support murder, so at the point when you can take the fetus out of the womb and it survives, then I support a cutoff. But as long as it's somewhere between a clump of cells and a tiny little thing that looks like a lizard, you should be able to terminate it for whatever reason you want.

[Vosem]

Unenforceable, therefore No (R).

[dialectical fetishist]

People should be able to have abortions for whatever reason they want.

Disgusting. This has my full support.

Gentlemen- when do you support a cutoff?

24 weeks.

[nclib]

No....though this is very unfortunate, there is no way to combat this practice without making all abortions suspect. This law is so vague and so easy to use throughout pregnancy that a blanket that if challenged could have the ability to overturn Roe v. Wade.

That's exactly why the GOP is doing this, hence my earlier coimment:

No (D).

Once again, the GOP is trying to manipulate the situation. There are probably very few sex-selective abortions in the U.S., and the GOP is trying to use that concept as an excuse to go after abortion doctors.

[realisticidealist]

Yes, of course (I/D).

[President Marokai]

This is a stupid and obviously unenforcable idea. Of course I wouldn't support it.

This is the bigger reason for opposing this, IMO. How the hell do you enforce something like this? It's not a proposal for a problem, it's just some weird attempt to whittle down abortion law.

[Torie]

No, although if you make it difficult to obtain late term abortions, you sort of end up in the same place, unless medical science can determine the sex of a fetus in the first trimester.

[Harry]

How could you possibly enforce this?  The woman could just say that the sex of the fetus wasn't the reason.

[Mr. Morden]

Laws like this haven't worked anywhere in the world they've been tried for a very simple reason:  You can always claim the abortion is because of something else. 

I would probably support it anyway just for the symbolism of it.

True, altho if a ban on sex-selective abortions were focused on the abortionists, it would be possible to go after them if their ratio was too skewed.

Is the sex of the fetus really something that an abortion clinic keeps track of?

[Free Palestine]

What's funny is, this reminds me of some hálfvitar pro-lifers who seriously said that abortion isn't pro-woman because half of all aborted fetuses are female.

[TheReporter]

It doesn't matter whatever you want your abortion for, you should be able to have it.

[True Federalist]

No, although if you make it difficult to obtain late term abortions, you sort of end up in the same place, unless medical science can determine the sex of a fetus in the first trimester.

Standard ultrasounds can usually discern the sex at around the end of the first trimester.  Early amniocentesis could make the determination as early as the 10th or 11th week. Last but not least, there's a test that can be done using the mother's blood that is 98% accurate in determining a child's sex in the eighth week.

So despite what one might hope, limiting abortion to the first trimester does not do much to prevent sex-selective abortion.

Laws like this haven't worked anywhere in the world they've been tried for a very simple reason:  You can always claim the abortion is because of something else.  

I would probably support it anyway just for the symbolism of it.

True, altho if a ban on sex-selective abortions were focused on the abortionists, it would be possible to go after them if their ratio was too skewed.

Is the sex of the fetus really something that an abortion clinic keeps track of?

Probably not, but it wouldn't be difficult to keep track of if clinics were required to. The development of the external genitalia becomes visible around the eighth week, and of course a chromosome test on the aborted tissue could be done if the abortion was done earlier.

[Northeast Representative Goldwater]

Unenforceable, therefore No (R).

[Purch]

A pro-choicer being against sex selective abortions is a hell of an oxymoron

[Frodo]

A pro-choicer being against sex selective abortions is a hell of an oxymoron

Not if women's rights is more important to you than cultural relativism. 

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

A pro-choicer being against sex selective abortions is a hell of an oxymoron

Not if women's rights is more important to you than cultural relativism. 

     Even though banning sex-selective abortions is a clear violation of women's rights? Last time I checked, abortion on demand does mean abortion on demand, motivations be damned. This bill is a transparent attempt at abrogating of the rights of women.

[Frodo]

A pro-choicer being against sex selective abortions is a hell of an oxymoron

Not if women's rights is more important to you than cultural relativism.  

     Even though banning sex-selective abortions is a clear violation of women's rights?

It's hard for me to see how banning sex-selective abortions can violate women's rights when the vast majority of those being aborted in those procedures (especially among East and South Asian populations) are baby girls.  Especially when  you consider that these women are driven to abort them by the patriarchal cultural mores in which they are raised that deem sons as being more important than daughters.  

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

A pro-choicer being against sex selective abortions is a hell of an oxymoron

Not if women's rights is more important to you than cultural relativism. 

Far from cultural relativism, it's utilitarianism for most of us.

[TJ in Wisco]

A pro-choicer being against sex selective abortions is a hell of an oxymoron

Not if women's rights is more important to you than cultural relativism. 

Far from cultural relativism, it's utilitarianism for most of us.

Does this extend to aborting fetuses because they have Down Syndrome or some other disease? If we take fetal life as not being worthy of protection, then wouldn't make more sense to have an abortion if the fetus has Down Syndrome?

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

A pro-choicer being against sex selective abortions is a hell of an oxymoron

Not if women's rights is more important to you than cultural relativism. 

     Even though banning sex-selective abortions is a clear violation of women's rights?

It's hard for me to see how banning sex-selective abortions can violate women's rights when the vast majority of those being aborted in those procedures (especially among East and South Asian populations) are baby girls.  Especially when  you consider that these women are driven to abort them by the patriarchal cultural mores in which they are raised that deem sons as being more important than daughters. 

     It's at best a poor substitute to actually undermining those patriarchal cultural mores. People frequently seem to think that a legal change is as good as a cultural change, which is a rather short-sighted view of the matter. The legal change can act as a bandage over the wounds of injustice, but it doesn't actually change anybody's mind.

     Besides, in the context of the United States, which the bill in question pertains to, there is hardly any evidence of sex-selective abortion existing, let alone it being a systemic problem. As I said earlier, this bill is an attack on legalized abortion.

[Frodo]

A pro-choicer being against sex selective abortions is a hell of an oxymoron

Not if women's rights is more important to you than cultural relativism. 

     Even though banning sex-selective abortions is a clear violation of women's rights?

It's hard for me to see how banning sex-selective abortions can violate women's rights when the vast majority of those being aborted in those procedures (especially among East and South Asian populations) are baby girls.  Especially when  you consider that these women are driven to abort them by the patriarchal cultural mores in which they are raised that deem sons as being more important than daughters. 

     It's at best a poor substitute to actually undermining those patriarchal cultural mores. People frequently seem to think that a legal change is as good as a cultural change, which is a rather short-sighted view of the matter. The legal change can act as a bandage over the wounds of injustice, but it doesn't actually change anybody's mind.

To use another example, article 15 of India's Constitution bans discrimination based on caste, and though caste discrimination has diminished as India has modernized, it is still quite common in rural areas.  Since caste discrimination still exists, was it a pointless legal exercise to have banned such injustice?  Or was it important regardless to send a signal to the population that caste discrimination needed to end? 

I argue the same applies to the ongoing genocide being directed against female infants.  In time, the practice will end but it is important that we begin somewhere -even if it is initially just a legal statement.   

Besides, in the context of the United States, which the bill in question pertains to, there is hardly any evidence of sex-selective abortion existing, let alone it being a systemic problem. As I said earlier, this bill is an attack on legalized abortion.

It isn't much of a problem now, but at some point it could become one.  I see no reason why we can't take pre-emptive action now to indicate to incoming immigrants from East and South Asia that the United States does not approve of the murder of baby girls, and will do whatever is necessary to prosecute those who engage in such actions. 

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

A pro-choicer being against sex selective abortions is a hell of an oxymoron

Not if women's rights is more important to you than cultural relativism. 

     Even though banning sex-selective abortions is a clear violation of women's rights?

It's hard for me to see how banning sex-selective abortions can violate women's rights when the vast majority of those being aborted in those procedures (especially among East and South Asian populations) are baby girls.  Especially when  you consider that these women are driven to abort them by the patriarchal cultural mores in which they are raised that deem sons as being more important than daughters. 

     It's at best a poor substitute to actually undermining those patriarchal cultural mores. People frequently seem to think that a legal change is as good as a cultural change, which is a rather short-sighted view of the matter. The legal change can act as a bandage over the wounds of injustice, but it doesn't actually change anybody's mind.

To use another example, article 15 of India's Constitution bans discrimination based on caste, and though caste discrimination has diminished as India has modernized, it is still quite common in rural areas.  Since caste discrimination still exists, was it a pointless legal exercise to have banned such injustice?  Or was it important regardless to send a signal to the population that caste discrimination needed to end? 

I argue the same applies to the ongoing genocide being directed against female infants.  In time, the practice will end but it is important that we begin somewhere -even if it is initially just a legal statement.   

Besides, in the context of the United States, which the bill in question pertains to, there is hardly any evidence of sex-selective abortion existing, let alone it being a systemic problem. As I said earlier, this bill is an attack on legalized abortion.

It isn't much of a problem now, but at some point it could become one.  I see no reason why we can't take pre-emptive action now to indicate to incoming immigrants from East and South Asia that the United States does not approve of the murder of baby girls, and will do whatever is necessary to prosecute those who engage in such actions. 

     It's not a pointless exercise, but it's not the complete solution. Beyond that, an effort has to be made to present arguments against the prevailing prejudices. Maybe I am mistaken, but it seems to me that some people think that passing a law is all that needs to be done.

     My point is, passing the law in question carries the negative impact of eroding away women's abortion rights. It may carry a positive impact in preventing the spread of this practice to the United States, but I think that at this early juncture we could avoid the issues of the proposed law by making attempts at educating immigrants from areas where sex-selective abortion is practiced. Let them know that forcing women to have abortions against their will inevitably violates various U.S. laws.

[Sibboleth]

Far from cultural relativism, it's utilitarianism for most of us.

That would be an infinitely worse reason to support something than cultural relativism.

Of course that's not actually the reason, is it? It's part of the uniform: an extreme position supported by people who are absolutely not extreme because said position is the one that they are supposed to have. The less actual thought involved the better.

Obviously this is a generic comment about abortion as an issue in American politics and so applies equally to both sides...

[Ebowed]

If we were able to determine the sexual orientation of a fetus, would Trent Franks support a nondiscrimination act of the same nature?

[Purch]

A pro-choicer being against sex selective abortions is a hell of an oxymoron

Not if women's rights is more important to you than cultural relativism. 

The whole idea behind people being "pro-choice" is that no one should be able to influence what a women decides to do with own her own body. It doesn't matter if what her motivation is convince, rape or incest so why is sex selective different? Or is it only a Women's choice when it's not inconvenient for the pro choice argument?