Gender-based abortions
Posted
May 13, 2009 at
12:41 pm by
Jessica
Right to life groups are going berserk over Sweden’s recent decision to allow women to abort based on gender under their current universal health care benefit. Whether you agree that unborn babies have certain rights or not, should tax payers be required to pay for their neighbor’s wish to discard a baby girl or baby boy based on gender only? And, will the proposed universal health care system in America follow suit?
Amanda Carpenter writes in the Washington Times:
The ruling was spurred by a request from Kai Wedenberg, head of the clinic where a woman twice requested, and received, an abortion based on sex.
Mr. Wedenberg asked for clarification from health officials after a woman, who already had two girls, requested amniocentesis and to be told the sex of her unborn child. She found out she was pregnant with another girl and asked for an abortion six days later.
The woman then became pregnant again, returned to the clinic and asked for another amniocentesis, which was not performed. Later, at her ultrasound, she asked the nurse to reveal the sex of her fetus, which was a girl. After learning this, the mother requested an abortion later that day and received it later that week.
Tags: abortions, debate, gender based abortion, hot topics, News-&-Politics, universal health care |
15 Responses to “Gender-based abortions”
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately in an effort to remove commercial messages, irrelevancies, excessive foul language, racist/sexist/hateful comments, spoofed/cloaked IPs and/or personal attacks and will be edited/deleted at our discretion. Thank you for your patience.
1. Allison G_MOD
May 13, 2009 @ 2:40 pm
By now, I’m sure you know my stance on abortion. For a long while (and maybe still, who knows?) people in China would kill baby girls in favor of baby boys due to the country’s strict one-child rule.
People all over the globe protested how unfair it was, and this is nothing less than that. Killing a baby, a life, based on gender is the same, whether that baby is tucked inside the womb, or taken seconds after natural delivery.
It’s sick and disgusting, and 3 giant stpes back for humanity……
2. Allison G_MOD
May 13, 2009 @ 2:56 pm
Sorry, to get back to the question you posed,
NO! NO! NO!
Would it be right to allow parents to reject a life-threatening procedure based on gender? It’s happening right now in parts of the world. In India it is widely reported that girls get much more inferior healthcare as compared to boys.
So to abort a baby based on gender under taxpayer-funded healthcare is wrong.
3. mully
May 13, 2009 @ 5:52 pm
Allison: I couldnt agree more. As a pro-life person I am totally against any form of abortion, but this absolutely ranks as the most selfish of all abortion acts.
The woman described in the above post, aside from being completely STUPID! seems to need a lesson in birth control. Spend some of that taxpayer money on that!
4. Valerie
May 13, 2009 @ 7:08 pm
NO FREAKIN WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I know that in China and India girls are considered to be inferior. That’s a discussion in itself.
Abortion based on gender is unthinkable. I even think that some pro-choice advocates would have to agree with that.
5. Shawnte
May 14, 2009 @ 11:26 am
First of all I have to say this woman is sick, she has no heart! Tax payers should not be required to pay for this woman’s (or any other woman that think like)stupidity. It’s outrageous!
6. Rita
May 14, 2009 @ 4:57 pm
I always find it interesting to read the actual article and then see which parts you decide to bring forth as opposed to which I see as relevant
The difference in this situation and what happens in China is that this is an isolated case, not an entire nation’s value system. This is actually in opposition to “the dominant view in our country,” per the article.
Also, giving a woman the right to choose when to have an abortion is doing just that–give her the right, which is something I totally support. That means that yes, women will make choices that I disagree with or that I would never do myself. That’s the problem with freedom, people are free to make different choices.
It is comforting to know though, that they keep track of these trends, and are alarmed by this and review it. If it becomes a trend in their society, they can address that. But, it being an isolated case (or even part of a minority), it is left under the umbrella of freedom of choice. It doesn’t matter whether she aborted because she didn’t want another girl, or she didn’t want a boy, or she didn’t want to be pregnant over her sister’s wedding in June, or she didn’t want to give birth in the winter, or she just didn’t want to be pregnant. Her reasons are her own, and we don’t have to approve of them or agree with them, because they’re not ours. Some people do not see abortion as being “murder” or anything heinous at all.
As far as having taxpayers cover abortions, again, yes, I am still in support of a universal health care system, which means I am in favor of letting people make their own medical choices.
I know, Jessica, so often it seems that for you it comes down to “who pays the bill,” and “do they deserve it,” but I just don’t see it that way.
7. Valerie
May 14, 2009 @ 7:26 pm
Aside from rights and aside from who is paying the bill, abortion can be a risky procedure even when performed by a licensed doctor. For one person to continue having abortions for trivial reasons such as gender selection or any of the reasons that you mentioned, Rita is just appalling in my opinion.
8. Jessica
May 15, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
While I don’t really have a dog in this fight, because I’m not a single issue voter and realize that Roe v. Wade is never going to be overturned. I have bigger fish to fry in light of what will remain law forever and ever.
I do find aborting based on gender impossible to dignify or support, especially given how many pro-choice advocates argue that the choice to abort is wrought with extreme ponderance and decision. This only further dehumanizes unborn babies as devalues them as objects, which is hard for me to wrap my mind around, especially after having a preemie baby. To think, he was inhuman and without rights only a milli-second before birth, but after he was born he has the same rights as anybody else depending on what side of the ueterine wall he’s on. Trust me, he was no more aware of his surrounding 20 minutes after birth as he was in utero.
I don’t think anybody “deserves” (or has a right to) a free abortion, so it’s not . (I do think that people who work should be rewarded moreso than people who don’t, but that’s a different conversation.) I am more concerned about the ongoing devaluation of children the world over. It just seems like the world is moving towards a diminshed value of children, exponentially recognizing rights as a child ages, but doesn’t a 5 year old deserve protections as much as an adult? I even see it in news stories where an infant or toddler is murdered and the killer gets a year or two. There seems to be this huge disconnect there and I’m not sure why. A society is only as good as how it’s treats it’s children.
JMHO.
9. Rita
May 15, 2009 @ 3:21 pm
The irony of that is that Sweden is a country that very much values families and children. A lot of the countries with the most lax abortion laws also have a lifestyle and value system that is way more supportive of children and families than countries who have strict abortion laws. So, while the trend to devalue children and families in the US is absolutely a problem, I don’t think you can apply that to Sweden or other countries across the globe.
I believe that for most women, the choice to abort is wrought with extreme ponderance, but there will be a few who are frivolous, to be sure.
I think the bottom line difference with a lot of these decisions is perspective. I look at the laws as how they might affect ME and my own. I don’t really give a rat’s ass about what anyone else does.
See, if I were ever in a position where I would choose an abortion, then it would absolutely be a very hard decision, wrought with emotion and heartache. Personally, I do believe that abortion is taking the life of another human being. I am also religious and I don’t believe that my God looks kindly on that behavior. So, if I were in a position of choosing an abortion, I would be doing it only because I would believe it’s in the best interest of the unborn baby (to save it severe suffering from a medical condition, for example), and I’d be willing to burn in hell for all eternity as a result of that action, because the love I’d have for my unborn child and my willingness to save it from suffering would be worth any amount of damnation. Therefore, I would not be welcoming of anyone else’s nose in my business. It would be hard enough a choice between me, my husband, my God and my doctor, I would not want the government involved at all. I would want them to back the fuck away from my choice and my body and trust that I’ve thought this over and come to the decision I feel is best given all the information.
In order for ME to have that right, I need to give everyone else that right as well. That means that there will be women who do not have the same beliefs that I do having abortions and women who don’t give it the same weighted consideration that I do and women who don’t even believe it’s a big deal at all. But, because I want my choice to be respected, I need to let their choices be respected, too.
10. mully
May 15, 2009 @ 11:24 pm
I am most grateful that, finally, for the first time in many years, national polls, show an increase in Pro Life advocates, especially in younger women. We are now over 50% strong!
11. Jessica
May 16, 2009 @ 1:30 pm
I heard that and found it interesting. It’s actually the first time since abortion has been polled that the pro-life stance has been over 50%. Why do you think that is?
I think it’s either a boost from the Hispanic community or perhaps that’s how current thinking has evolved.
12. mully
May 16, 2009 @ 2:55 pm
Jessica: Many of the sites I visited lend a certain amount of creedence to moderate to conservative Americans (both Democrat and Republican) reacting to Obama being the most pro abortion President in history.
They seem to suggest that more Americans are pulling away from the idea of abortion based on what is viewed as Obama’s radical stance on both abortion but most especially, late term abortions.
I take that to mean that the American public probably can handle a President who has views on abortion ranging both middle to liberal and middle to conservative, but radical, I think sends a scary message to many Americans and both the Pew poll and the Gallop poll tends to show that.
The idea of Hispanics contributing to the shift is interesting tho considering that many Hispanics voted for Obama, as well as many Catholics. I am wondering, however, and I couldnt find anything to substantiate this thought, if those same Hispanics and Catholics who voted for Obama, were in that 20-to early 30 something age range that overwhelmingly voted him into office.
If that were true, then I would suggest that perhaps that might indicate a less Conservative Catholic in that age group.
Fifty and over were heavily leaning past the 50% marker as far as being Pro Life.
13. Jessica
May 16, 2009 @ 5:17 pm
Huh. I’m not sure I buy that though, and here’s why…
Many Americans support Obama regardless of his stance on abortion even as he takes flip flopping to a whole new level (look, now he’s veering dangrously close to owing the Bush administration an apology on their War on Terrorism).
On abortion, he even backed off of the Freedom of Choice Act that would allow a woman to sue any doctor that refused to give her an abortion. In fact, he said he’s decided to drop that altogether.
I mean, maybe you’re right in the sense that the stage of viability has changed dramatically (based on technology) and people want their voices to be heard loud and clear over an abortion President that is clearly outside the mainstream on this issue. It will be interesting to hear what he says at Notre Dame tomorrow. I’m not Catholic, but I almost get the feeling that the Catholic church is going to break off into different sects, with the break away being something like “The New Catholic Church of Unicorns”. LOL
14. mully
May 16, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
Good points Jessica. You can bet Ill be watching tomorrow. The Catholic Church has a lot to answer for as far as I am concerned. All of that said though, I doubt that Obama will come within a football field of mentioning abortion.
15. Jessica
May 19, 2009 @ 10:54 am
I forgot to respond to this.
This is debatable.
Not to knock Sweden, I’m sure there are many wonderful things about it; personally I would rather raise my children in the U.S. for a number of reasons.
Sweden is not without its problems. First of all, it’s a complete paradox between their child laws (it’s illegal to spank children there) and their lax punishment or lack of any rehabilitation of sexual predators. Abuse has actually increased something like 600% since that no-spanking law was passed and it’s been long known in child advocacy circles that Sweden has been a safe haven for pedophiles and child sex offenders for some reason. Interpol has had to intervene and bust several child porn rings operating out Sweden. I’m not even sure if sexual abuse is even tracked there.
Also, I personally know two people from Sweden and from I understand, their free universities leave a lot to be desired and almost ALL women work outside the home and encouraged by the government to do so. So, even though they get 18 months off of partially paid leave (and breastfeeding is strongly encouraged if not forced- probably because it’s so expensive to ff there), as many as 99% of mother’s work.
They also have a huge problem with drugs and alcohol and child alcoholism continues to be a huge problem there.
The U.S. in contrast, is actually increasing and toughening child abuse laws.
Not that this has anything to do with abortions, but attitudes about children definitely do. It’s not enough to criminalize spanking. All that does is diminish freedoms, but does very little to protect children from real abuse. That has to come from personal values and not from government parenting.