Don’t like Your Baby’s Gender? Sweden Rules 'Gender-Based' Abortion Legal

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by OPTIONAL777, May 15, 2009.

  1. Don’t like Your Baby’s Gender? Sweden Rules 'Gender-Based' Abortion Legal
    Posted by Cole Gamble

    Now, according to a Swedish medical ruling, if a mother or couple discover the gender of their baby and decide “that’s not what we were hoping for” they can get an abortion on that basis.

    Here’s how it broke down. A Swedish mother of two girls requested two abortions in a row after learning the gender of her fetus. It became apparent to doctors her decision to abort was based on the discovery of gender, which obviously was not the one she was aiming for. Doctors at Mälaren Hospital expressed concern and asked Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare to draw up guidelines on how to handle requests in the future in which they "feel pressured to examine the fetus’s gender" without having a medically compelling reason to do so.

    The board found such requests cannot be refused, and neither can abortions, thus medical staff cannot refuse to perform an abortion based on gender.

    Now the idea of isolating a “gay” gene in fetuses and therefore “eliminating” it has been bandied about by rather tacky political pundits. But before we get to that moral maelstrom, pick-and-choose baby gender is already here. Sure, the day when doctors can fudge your baby’s DNA to increase the probability of a boy or girl is possibly coming sooner than later, but for now, if you don’t like what you got, scrap it and start again.

    Does this already happen discreetly in America? I can’t imagine anyone would ever openly admit to their doctor or otherwise that they want to abort the baby because “I really had my heart set on a girl” but that doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. Do you think this is more common that people are admitting?

    http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/stro...0_Gender_2D00_Based_2700_-Abortion-Legal.aspx
     
  2. Gender selection and physical attribute pre-natal selection compliments of Roe v. Wade.

    The court ruling is logical.

    If abortion on demand is legal, then everything associated with it is legal also.

    I would argue with you over the "danger" to the gay baby, as homosexuality is a lifestyle choice , not a gene, in my opinion.

    [ If homosexuality was a genetic malfunction, and the screening for the malfunction was readily available, it would be very interesting to see if this mutation was eradicated by parental selection / screening ]
     
  3. It's possible... That's why midgets are on the path to extinction in first world nations- When was the last time you saw a young midget?
     
  4. It's possible... That's why midgets are on the path to extinction in first world nations- When was the last time you saw a young midget? [/QUOTE]

    In z10's bed.

    Oh sorry, that was a 10 year old tijuanan boy.

    this joke was only for promotional purposes, not harm was intended on z10.


     
  5. It is none of the doctors, hospital, medical associations, and certainly not the government's business as too why she didn't want to carry the pregnacies to term. She doesn't want the child: 'nuff said.

    That is solely HER decision, unless we are going to classify women as nothing more than 'baby factories'.
     
  6. The controversy over gender-based abortion is about as relevant as the controversy over Miss California.
     
  7. The government through the NIH has wasted tens of millions of dollars, if not more, futilely searching for the gay gene. No doubt there has been an even greater amount of research at the university level. The stakes are enormous, at least to the gay lobby. If homosexuality can be demonstrated to be genetic, then they have a far stronger case for legal recognition. Of course, the search has turned up nothing and wasted resources that could have been used on real medical research.
     
  8. " Of course, the search has turned up nothing and wasted resources that could have been used on real medical research."

    Oh, you mean real medical research like embryonic stem cell research...

     
  9. For God's Sakes, are you questioning A WOMAN'S "RIGHT" TO CHOOSE ....



    idiot-leftists
     
  10. Funny thing about a woman's right to choose.

    C she can choose to not be a mom if she wishes. She can also choose to force a man into fatherhood.

    So, the man can choose to use contraceptive, and risk it's failure.

    And the woman can choose to use contraception and have a get out of motherhood free card until she finds the right sized child support check.

    This type of legal situation cannot but breed mysogyny. The act of sex is so lopsidedly risky to the male that it is bound to breed some serious troubles.

    So, now, the woman can say what gender she wants, and the man will have no say. Will a man seriously take on this risk?

    I would personally never consider a woman from sweden at this point. Limited upside, unlimited downside.
     
    #10     May 16, 2009