Illegal abortions in the UK

[Coito ergo sum]

I am curious as to where this originates, if it turns out to be true.

We have a significant South Asian population here and male children are often valued rather more than girl children in the older 'tradition'. In India abandoning girls babies to die is common.

Just a thought.

Yep, that was my first thought too, Indian Britons bent on having sons because daughters are bothers, and expenses, and don't take care of you in your old age (as they will be taking care of their husband's parents)

So, women who think that way ought to be forced to have babies against their will?

[Coito ergo sum]

British law doesn't apply in the middle east or Indian sub-continent.

So what if an Indian mother said "this is a girl, I don't want a girl." That would warrant criminalizing her abortion that would otherwise be legal?

Uh? I seem to be reading you words but missing your point again.

Indians in India are free to drive themselves into a demographic hole if their lawmakers will let them, but this is about the UK.

That's what I said. I wasn't the one who brought up Indians.

[MrJonno]

So, women who think that way ought to be forced to have babies against their will?

In a normal functioning society definitely not but if you are saying there are never under any circumstances where that could be possible I would have to disagree . If society was on the brink of collapse due to a lack of women which isnt true anywhere in the world at the moment then possibly

[Svartalf]

I am curious as to where this originates, if it turns out to be true.

We have a significant South Asian population here and male children are often valued rather more than girl children in the older 'tradition'. In India abandoning girls babies to die is common.

Just a thought.

Yep, that was my first thought too, Indian Britons bent on having sons because daughters are bothers, and expenses, and don't take care of you in your old age (as they will be taking care of their husband's parents)

So, women who think that way ought to be forced to have babies against their will?

If they wait to know the gender, it shows they are wiling to have babies, Our demographics don't have to suffer of their silly cultural biases, or they can go back home where I suppose the laws will be mmore accomodating to their silliness.

And of course, doctors collaborating in this ought to be disbarred and deported.

[Svartalf]

British law doesn't apply in the middle east or Indian sub-continent.

So what if an Indian mother said "this is a girl, I don't want a girl." That would warrant criminalizing her abortion that would otherwise be legal?

Uh? I seem to be reading you words but missing your point again.

Indians in India are free to drive themselves into a demographic hole if their lawmakers will let them, but this is about the UK.

That's what I said. I wasn't the one who brought up Indians.

No, they brought themselves, unless data I missed indicates they are not the demographic group involved with OP.

[Coito ergo sum]

British law doesn't apply in the middle east or Indian sub-continent.

So what if an Indian mother said "this is a girl, I don't want a girl." That would warrant criminalizing her abortion that would otherwise be legal?

Uh? I seem to be reading you words but missing your point again.

Indians in India are free to drive themselves into a demographic hole if their lawmakers will let them, but this is about the UK.

That's what I said. I wasn't the one who brought up Indians.

No, they brought themselves, unless data I missed indicates they are not the demographic group involved with OP.

So, abortions among Indians in the UK are to be restricted because they aren't having them for the right reasons?

I mean -- does the woman have the right to the abortion? Or, is she to be forced to carry a child she doesn't want - even in the first trimester????

[Svartalf]

Nope, abortions among Indians are to follow the same rules as among other groups.
It's funny how they are the main group that actively tries for gender selection by using this method.

[Coito ergo sum]

Nope, abortions among Indians are to follow the same rules as among other groups.
It's funny how they are the main group that actively tries for gender selection by using this method.

So, then if anyone isn't getting an abortion for the right reason, they can't get one, even in the first trimester?

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...That doesnt of course stop me thinking some parts of Asian/Muslim culture is utterly shit but while they obey the law its not really any of my business

I just can't take that point of view. Culture matters. Allowing rotten cultural values (from whatever source) to fester in our midst unchallenged will always come back to bite us on the arse.

That simple fact makes this things our business.

[MrJonno]

...That doesnt of course stop me thinking some parts of Asian/Muslim culture is utterly shit but while they obey the law its not really any of my business

I just can't take that point of view. Culture matters. Allowing rotten cultural values (from whatever source) to fester in our midst unchallenged will always come back to bite us on the arse.

That simple fact makes this things our business.

Where any cultural values are against the law we need to need to use the full weight of the legal system.
It's where it is legal that its more of an issue, covering ones hair as a sign of purity is bollocks but not obviously damaging to the person or society. Wearing a full tent over your head and covering your face is a different matter. I don't think its easy to ban but you can make people who do it lives as hard as possible. No access to any public services while not showing your face, the police should be allowed at will to ask someone to reveal their face (but not search them without some sort of cause), private companies should be allowed to discriminate against anyone does this without fear of prosecution

[hadespussercats]

Nope, abortions among Indians are to follow the same rules as among other groups.
It's funny how they are the main group that actively tries for gender selection by using this method.

So, then if anyone isn't getting an abortion for the right reason, they can't get one, even in the first trimester?

I think this is ridiculous (not you, Coito.) Either you have the right to get the abortion or not. Aborting a fetus of the "wrong" gender might be something I'd personally find reprehensible-- but that's aside from the point, policy-wise.

Besides, if you make that illegal, what about people who have sex-linked genetic disorders that run in their family? Shouldn't they have the right to choose not to have a child who, based on sex, has a much higher chance of having all sorts of health problems, or a life full of suffering?

And you can't effectively outlaw one without also outlawing the other.

Besides, as I understand it, there's a way to choose the sex of offpring via in-vitro fertilizing (that's mostly, but not 100 percent accurate)-- there's a sorting process where a centrifuge is used to separate male-- I have to look this up, if it's male-carrying sperm, or a male embryo, I'm not sure-- but basically the idea is that the Y-chromosome is smaller and lighter, so a centrifuge can separate male from female, and implant the desired variety.

If this option is open to wealthy parents-to-be, then why is the other option (far more affordable) not acceptable?

ETA: It's sperm, I guess. I haven't vetted this source, but it shows what I'm talking about: http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=36964

[MrJonno]

I think this is ridiculous (not you, Coito.) Either you have the right to get the abortion or not. Aborting a fetus of the "wrong" gender might be something I'd personally find reprehensible-- but that's aside from the point, policy-wise

Disagree with that statemetn something is either legal or not illegal, its legal to drive a car but its not a right to

[PsychoSerenity]

This is a complicated issue that's come about as the result of developing technology, and as a result I think society hasn't really caught up with the ethics of it yet. Are parents to be allowed to choose the characteristics of the children they will have? So far the conclusion has been that it's only acceptable if there is a reasonably serious medical reason to do so - anything essentially cosmetic, like gender, is out of the question. But as the technology continues to advance, and it becomes easier, safer and cheaper to choose the characteristics more and more precisely, that conclusion may be forced to change. I don't know. Is it right for parents to be able to choose to have children with a particular temperament, or to look a certain way? Is it sensible for a society to allow the genetics of it's population to be affected by cultural whims?

[Coito ergo sum]

Nope, abortions among Indians are to follow the same rules as among other groups.
It's funny how they are the main group that actively tries for gender selection by using this method.

So, then if anyone isn't getting an abortion for the right reason, they can't get one, even in the first trimester?

I think this is ridiculous (not you, Coito.) Either you have the right to get the abortion or not. Aborting a fetus of the "wrong" gender might be something I'd personally find reprehensible-- but that's aside from the point, policy-wise.

Besides, if you make that illegal, what about people who have sex-linked genetic disorders that run in their family? Shouldn't they have the right to choose not to have a child who, based on sex, has a much higher chance of having all sorts of health problems, or a life full of suffering?

There are plenty of people out there who are as repulsed by disability based abortion choices as sex based choices. Once it's granted that a majority vote can control the "reason" for an abortion, then all bets are off. The Christians can take control and claim that other reasons for abortions are wrong, or that aborting for no reason other than personal preference is unacceptable.

And you can't effectively outlaw one without also outlawing the other.

Besides, as I understand it, there's a way to choose the sex of offpring via in-vitro fertilizing (that's mostly, but not 100 percent accurate)-- there's a sorting process where a centrifuge is used to separate male-- I have to look this up, if it's male-carrying sperm, or a male embryo, I'm not sure-- but basically the idea is that the Y-chromosome is smaller and lighter, so a centrifuge can separate male from female, and implant the desired variety.

If this option is open to wealthy parents-to-be, then why is the other option (far more affordable) not acceptable?

ETA: It's sperm, I guess. I haven't vetted this source, but it shows what I'm talking about: http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=36964

I'm sure there are some who would say that parents seeking in vitro should not be permitted to choose the sex, or the hair color, of their children...

[hadespussercats]

Nope, abortions among Indians are to follow the same rules as among other groups.
It's funny how they are the main group that actively tries for gender selection by using this method.

So, then if anyone isn't getting an abortion for the right reason, they can't get one, even in the first trimester?

I think this is ridiculous (not you, Coito.) Either you have the right to get the abortion or not. Aborting a fetus of the "wrong" gender might be something I'd personally find reprehensible-- but that's aside from the point, policy-wise.

Besides, if you make that illegal, what about people who have sex-linked genetic disorders that run in their family? Shouldn't they have the right to choose not to have a child who, based on sex, has a much higher chance of having all sorts of health problems, or a life full of suffering?

There are plenty of people out there who are as repulsed by disability based abortion choices as sex based choices. Once it's granted that a majority vote can control the "reason" for an abortion, then all bets are off. The Christians can take control and claim that other reasons for abortions are wrong, or that aborting for no reason other than personal preference is unacceptable.

And you can't effectively outlaw one without also outlawing the other.

Besides, as I understand it, there's a way to choose the sex of offpring via in-vitro fertilizing (that's mostly, but not 100 percent accurate)-- there's a sorting process where a centrifuge is used to separate male-- I have to look this up, if it's male-carrying sperm, or a male embryo, I'm not sure-- but basically the idea is that the Y-chromosome is smaller and lighter, so a centrifuge can separate male from female, and implant the desired variety.

If this option is open to wealthy parents-to-be, then why is the other option (far more affordable) not acceptable?

ETA: It's sperm, I guess. I haven't vetted this source, but it shows what I'm talking about: http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=36964

I'm sure there are some who would say that parents seeking in vitro should not be permitted to choose the sex, or the hair color, of their children...

Re the bolded bit-- Yes, yes, yes.

My commentary here is strictly in response to the notion of outlawing abortions performed based on the sex of the fetus. But any of the arguments you raise could be used to shut down abortion rights altogether.

(And re your in vitro remark-- Eugenics are off-putting. For all sorts of reasons. )

(But thank god I had a nice blond boy!) (KIDDING!)