Sex-selective abortions may have stopped the birth of 23 million girls

[Yekcidmij]

Sex-selective abortions may have stopped the birth of 23 million girls

"A huge analysis of worldwide population data suggests sex-selective abortions have led to at least 23 million fewer girls being born. The majority of these “missing” girls are in China and India.

Many societies value sons over daughters. As people around the world increasingly have fewer children, there has been a rise in families choosing to abort female fetuses in an effort to have at least one son...."​

For those who are pro-abortion, are sex selective abortions morally permissible? If not, why? On it's face, at least to me, it seems that so long as the unborn isn't really a human life, then there is nothing morally impermissible about it. It's just a mother's personal preferences about her body.

I don't think it's morally permissible. But I think that the unborn is a human life and so this not only is the killing of a human life, but it's doing so based on gender, so it's an especially immoral sexist act of killing.

 

[RaymondG]

I dont believe there are many people, if any, who are pro-abortion. But there are many who are Pro- Choice, those who are ok with the free will that God gave all, and cannot bring themselves to try and take it away from others......even via the likes of trying to make them feel bad for making choices they wouldn't ever make.

They say Abortion is no good, but do not force other to do what they believe it right.

Therefore It may be important to note that your question is not for the Pro-Choice Crowd...but rather the few, if anything that believe abortion is a good thing period.... regardless of the reason.....

 

[Yekcidmij]

I dont believe there are many people, if any, who are pro-abortion. But there are many who are Pro- Choice, those who are ok with the free will that God gave all, and cannot bring themselves to try and take it away from others......even via the likes of trying to make them feel bad for making choices they wouldn't ever make.

They say Abortion is no good, but do not force other to do what they believe it right.

Therefore It may be important to note that your question is not for the Pro-Choice Crowd...but rather the few, if anything that believe abortion is a good thing period.... regardless of the reason.....

Well, you can change my "pro-abortion" term to "pro-choice" if you want and I think the question is still a meaningful ethical question.

 

[RaymondG]

Well, you can change my "pro-abortion" term to "pro-choice" if you want and I think the question is still a meaningful ethical question.

I think you are right to put pro abortion..... As your arguments are for those who are for abortion...Those who believe it's ok.......This is not the sentiment of those who are pro-choice.

It seems you are speaking to an audience that does not exist.....Which is why you have no replies.

If you desire a conversation...you must offer facts, to an audience that exists, to discuss.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I think you are right to put pro abortion..... As your arguments are for those who are for abortion...Those who believe it's ok.......This is not the sentiment of those who are pro-choice.

It seems you are speaking to an audience that does not exist.....Which is why you have no replies.

If you desire a conversation...you must offer facts, to an audience that exists, to discuss.

So if you are for people being able to do what the OP says has been done ( abortion based upon sexism) you are somehow not on the hook that it happened because you weren't openly rooting for them to do this just wanting them to be able to if that was their choice?

 

[RaymondG]

So if you are for people being able to do what the OP says has been done ( abortion based upon sexism) you are somehow not on the hook that it happened because you weren't openly rooting for them to do this just wanting them to be able to if that was their choice?

You have no argument because the group does not exist. So to have to make up a group that is ok with this and argue with them. If this is not truth, please show me were I stated that I was pro-choice or that I was ok with anything mentioned in the op.

I know it's hard to argue alone......but I am lead to follow peace....so you will need to pick a different person to join you.

I already told the oper what he needs to do to invite the confusion and devision he seeks.

 

[grasping the after wind]

You have no argument because the group does not exist. So to have to make up a group that is ok with this and argue with them. If this is not truth, please show me were I stated that I was pro-choice or that I was ok with anything mentioned in the op.

I know it's hard to argue alone......but I am lead to follow peace....so you will need to pick a different person to join you.

I already told the oper what he needs to do to invite the confusion and devision he seeks.

If one claims to be pro choice( notice I am not using the word "you" here ) and one does not allow that the choice can be questioned as to motive, then one is in favor of allowing abortion even if it based upon sexism. As there are certainly a large group and probably millions of people that have taken the stance that a woman's choice cannot be questioned based upon the woman's motives for obtaining an abortion, then the group certainly does exist. So again I ask does not openly rooting for people to abort based upon the sexism by rejecting one sex for the fetus to be taken to term and not the other , let them off the hook for wanting the choice to be there to abort based upon sexism? I would say that those that want completely unfettered choice for the woman must bear some responsibility for allowing sexism to take place as they are fighting for the woman to make such a choice even though they do not cheerlead for that particular choice. We make trade offs based upon our priorities. in the case of the group I am speaking of, which do undoubtedly exist, they find that unfettered choice to abort is of greater importance than opposing sexism when the two are in opposition to each other.

 

[FireDragon76]

It sounds to me like the problem is patriarchy more than legal access to abortion.

 

[Yekcidmij]

It sounds to me like the problem is patriarchy more than legal access to abortion.

So you don't think there's a problem with sex-selective abortions in principle, just that the selection process should be more equal?

 

[FireDragon76]

So you don't think there's a problem with sex-selective abortions in principle, just that the selection process should be more equal?

Of course I think there's a problem with sex-selection of abortion, it reflects patriarchal denigration of the dignity of women. But that is only loosely related to my stance on the actual ethics and politics of abortion, which is more complicated than simply "abortion bad and therefore illegal".

 

[Yekcidmij]

Of course I think there's a problem with sex-selection of abortion, it reflects patriarchal denigration of the dignity of women.

What if the distribution of sex-selective abortions was equal? Would it be acceptable then?

 

[StillGods]

What if the distribution of sex-selective abortions was equal? Would it be acceptable then?