Twin male fetuses aborted-because they were male

Ok, I'll just say this: I consider it highly unethical and immoral to abort a fetus simply due to it's sex, race, eye color, hair color, etc etc.

Yeah but we're already doing it. It's just not sanctioned. People abort babies because of gender every day. But usually the fetus is a lot older by the time they find out the gender. In this case the doctors would know from the get go.
 
if there is a Hell, there is a little corner for such folks.

Lucky for us there isn't a hell. You know the ancient Arabs used to bury baby girls in the sand. Nice huh.

In fact one of the things that kind of made me respect Islam for a while is that they put an end to this practice.

The Qur'an ended the cruel pre-Islamic practice of female infanticide , wa'd:

When the female (infant) buried alive is questioned for what crime she was killed.... (Qur'an 81:8-9)


If we have the technology now to choose the things we'd like on a child prior to implantation doesn't it make more sense and reflect a sense of decency to choose prior to that?
 
If we have the technology now to choose the things we'd like on a child prior to implantation doesn't it make more sense and reflect a sense of decency to choose prior to that?

i have less a problem with the idea of pre-selecting characteristics, including gender, for a fetus...than I do killing a fetus when you discover it is not to your liking.

personally, I like the idea of letting nature choose for itself. I only support the idea of removing pre-dispositions to diseases, mutations, malformations.
 
Thinking about this a bit more I am wondering why they were eligible for government assisted IVF - they already had 3 children?
 
Care to provide some actual proof of that? Gender selection has been going on long enough in places like India and China for it to have noticeable demographic effects. But I don't know of any great improvements in the legal, social and economic conditions of women in those countries.


Tatyana said:
If all the cultures that value boys more end up with a shortage of women, they might just have to reconsider their views on women, or start to undergo a population decrease.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8451289.stm
Just an opinion, and it isn't historical. It is something that I think is going to happen.

The gender imbalance hasn't hit that desperate point yet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8451289.stm
China faces growing gender imbalance

More than 24 million Chinese men of marrying age could find themselves without spouses by 2020, says the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences

The current solutions are not looking that great right now.

http://chinatrade.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2010/01/11/gender-imbalance-and-human-trafficking-in-china/

However, there is some optimism that with the rising economic power of China and India, the situation will also improve for women.

http://www.cddep.org/blog/posts/“mi...der_imbalance_debate_and_public_policy_part_2
 
Thinking about this a bit more I am wondering why they were eligible for government assisted IVF - they already had 3 children?

Good observation, I wonder why too. If these selfish fools really wanted a girl they could find a doctor who would accommodate them. Cheap bastards just want it for free.
 
Oh, I think she should be forcibly sterilized. The stupid and terminally selfish shouldn't be allowed to breed at all.
.
Man, that's a couple of baskets FULL of snakes there!
Who determines stupid, or terminally selfish?
 
Since when has abortion not been based on preference? Very few abortions are performed for medical issues? What planet do you live on ?
.
Most often the "preference" is to be un-pregnant. The cause of the pregnancy is frequently the driver.... rape, for instance.
Medically, many are done for medical reasons.
Gender... too many boys, well, maybe, in a large family.
A girl?... get rid of all of those, and the problem solves itself in a generation.
 
.
Nice!
All those warts have cleared up well! :)

Yes, she's quite lovely!

So, this couple already had 3 children, the gov't paid for IVF only for them to abort a successful IVF attempt but then they want to have the gov't pay for this again?? I just think they're asshats and I find the whole thing quite distasteful.

Although...aren't some fertilized eggs tossed anyway for fear of having multiples? So, perhaps the end result is the same...5 eggs fertilized, only 3 are implanted, they aren't "right" and are aborted....5 eggs fertilized, find the one that's "right" and there you go, in both cases 4 potentials for children are tossed. Not sure if my logic/math is right...
 
Although I am pro choice, I find it hard to justify abortions based on how the child will turn out.
Aborting based on the sex of the child is pretty horrid, as is aborting because you discover the child may be handicapped. It sends shivers down my spine (I'm not talking about being severely handicapped so that the child will be suffering pain from day one).

The first thing I thought of when I found out she wanted a girl was that she should just go the adoption route. Give an orphaned girl a loving home.

It is something I'm wrestling with though, what reasons do I have for being against it, other than it being "icky"? I'm atheist, so I can't claim that children are some gift from a God - but the idea that parents may be able to weed out children they'd rather not have, seems against... god nature personal beliefs. :confused:

Because as technology improves where does it stop? What if one of the candidates will have ginger hair? :jaw-dropp
 
Although I am pro choice, I find it hard to justify abortions based on how the child will turn out.
Aborting based on the sex of the child is pretty horrid, as is aborting because you discover the child may be handicapped. It sends shivers down my spine (I'm not talking about being severely handicapped so that the child will be suffering pain from day one).

...snip...

In France a few years back it became possible (at least for a short period of time) for disabled children to sue their parents or their parents' doctors if they knew the child was or was likely to be disabled. Let me see if I can find any links... I can find some links to the changes brought in to limit this right to not be born: http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/1-11-2002-9171.asp
 
In France a few years back it became possible (at least for a short period of time) for disabled children to sue their parents or their parents' doctors if they knew the child was or was likely to be disabled. Let me see if I can find any links... I can find some links to the changes brought in to limit this right to not be born: http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/1-11-2002-9171.asp

There have been action taken in Australia for "wrongful birth", involving not only disabled children but IVF twins. This probably explains why the doctor aborted the twins- fear of litigation.
 
In France a few years back it became possible (at least for a short period of time) for disabled children to sue their parents or their parents' doctors if they knew the child was or was likely to be disabled.

what...they prefered to have never existed????

what a joke. some folks will sue their own mother for not genetically engineering them to have three eyes.
 
There have been action taken in Australia for "wrongful birth", involving not only disabled children but IVF twins. This probably explains why the doctor aborted the twins- fear of litigation.


The doctor best keep her fingers crossed that Sylvia Browne doesn't tour Australia, the twins might decide to sue!
 
I think we should allow gender selection.

If all the cultures that value boys more end up with a shortage of women, they might just have to reconsider their views on women, or start to undergo a population decrease.

As we have population issues and issues with the status of women in some cultures, I see this as a win-win.

Except that's the same kind of thinking that drives the anti-abortion crowd. They want to make abortion (and, wishfully, birth control) illegal because if all people who have sex outside of marriage were forced to carry and raise any children they conceive as a consequence, that might persuade people in general to stop having unmarried sex. Win-win?
 
As long as abortion is legal what difference does it make? :confused::confused: Women abort fetuses for being "not what they wanted" every day.

The difference here being most women who have abortions did not want to get pregnant in the first place! IVF treatment should not be taken so lightly.Like someone else said, if you are so set on a daughter adopt.

i have less a problem with the idea of pre-selecting characteristics, including gender, for a fetus...than I do killing a fetus when you discover it is not to your liking.

personally, I like the idea of letting nature choose for itself. I only support the idea of removing pre-dispositions to diseases, mutations, malformations.

My thinking goes the same way. Or maybe she should try a different man who can make girlie babies?
 
Last edited:
If you believe, as I do, that a fetus is not yet a human being with rights, and therefore support elective abortion, why should you care about the reasons?

And if you believe that a fetus is a human being with rights, why would you support elective abortion at all?
 
Last edited:
If you believe, as I do, that a fetus is not yet a human being with rights, and therefore support elective abortion, why should you care about the reasons?

And if you believe that a fetus is a human being with rights, why would you support elective abortion at all?

Pick a side, we're at war!

You seem to be operating under the assumption that logic guides the abrotion debate, poor fool *shakes head*.






[This was for the lulz, and not an incitement to violence]
 
This story has been all over the Australian media. A couple who have three boys entered the IVF program in the hope of having a girl to replace one who was stillborn. The mother became pregnant and discovered it was twin boys. She sought and attained an abortion (of marginal legality as I understand Auatralian abortion laws).

The couple have now gone to the courts seeking to decide the gender of any further child conceived through IVF. Gender selection is illegal in Victoria.

Interestingly IVF doctors support the couple.

I am really uncomfortable with the whole idea of gender selection. I should add that although IVF is costly for participants, it is also highly subsidized by the government.

Comments?

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/why-our-next-child-must-be-a-daughter/story-e6freuy9-1225983928223

I'm fine with it. I support a woman's choice, I support abortion, I have no problem with parent's choosing whatever possible in their child EXCEPT choosing so the new child is essentially meant to provide replacement parts, blood transfusions or any other such for an existing child. That I am completely and absolutely against. It is in essence slavery. Not acceptable.
 
Ok, I'll just say this: I consider it highly unethical and immoral to abort a fetus simply due to it's sex, race, eye color, hair color, etc etc.

and when exactly is an abortion ethical and moral?

cheers
 
.Like someone else said, if you are so set on a daughter adopt.

The problem is that adoption of babies is next to impossible in Australia. Almost no babies are given up for adoption, and the government makes adoption of overseas babies extremely difficult. The policy is based on the belief that babies are best brought up within their culture. Adopting older children is slightly easier, but the government prefers that these children stay with foster parents.

My wife and I didn't think we could have kids at first (we ended up having seven!), and we would have had no hesitation in using IVF, but a I am certain we would not aborted a fetus because of it's gender.
 
I'd...enjoy seeing a source for this.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

METHODS: In 2004, a structured survey was completed by 1,209 abortion patients at 11 large providers, and in-depth interviews were conducted with 38 women at four sites. Bivariate analyses examined differences in the reasons for abortion across subgroups, and multivariate logistic regression models assessed associations between respondent characteristics and reported reasons.

RESULTS: The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman’s education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a
single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents’ or partners’
desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.

I guess I'm assuming here, but I'm thinking that those women probably didn't want to be pregnant in the first place.
 
.....[snip] in the hope of having a girl to replace one who was stillborn......[/snip]

For me this is the most uncomfortable bit, it's almost like saying to someone "you're not a person in your own right, you're just here to replace a child who was lost". IMO it's not quite as creepy as having a child to replace one who lived for a number of years *, but it's still pretty bad.


* - let me explain myself a little better. I always worry when someone says that one child is to replace another. Do they expect the new child to be exactly the same as another ? Do they expect the pain of the loss to go away ? What kind of pressure does this put on the "replacement" if they don't turn out as expected ?

I fear for the parents' state of mind as and when their "replacement" daughter is born
 
This story has been all over the Australian media. A couple who have three boys entered the IVF program in the hope of having a girl to replace one who was stillborn. The mother became pregnant and discovered it was twin boys. She sought and attained an abortion (of marginal legality as I understand Auatralian abortion laws).

The couple have now gone to the courts seeking to decide the gender of any further child conceived through IVF. Gender selection is illegal in Victoria.

Interestingly IVF doctors support the couple.

I am really uncomfortable with the whole idea of gender selection. I should add that although IVF is costly for participants, it is also highly subsidized by the government.

Comments?

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/why-our-next-child-must-be-a-daughter/story-e6freuy9-1225983928223

Why would it be worse than any other abortion ?
 
I am against abortion. I think it is murder. It's very clear it is murder to me. I consider life an individual right and don't think a woman has the right to take away another human beings life even if she is the one who has to bring the child to term.

Even if the pregnancy threatens her life, for instance ?
 
Oh well I'm not a girly girl that's for sure. LOL

But I'll post a photo on my profile that's a tad glam so people can see.

I checked your photo and I can say you are definitely not a man. Good work.

And on topic: carry on! (sorry, nothing to add).
 
That couple has some seriously messed up priorities.

Go adopt. Problem solved. The IVF clinics shouldn't waste resources on parents planning to abort half the time.
How are their priorities different from those of ANY customer of IVF clinic? You could say "Go adopt" to all infertile couples.
 
If I were a girl born to this family it would bother me to no end to know my parents aborted a set of twins in order to make room for me.
I know a woman whose twin was aborted. Not out of medical issues, the mother simply did not want to deal with two babies. (That was before IVF.) To the best of my knowledge, the woman in question was not bothered by that knowledge.
 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8451289.stm
Just an opinion, and it isn't historical. It is something that I think is going to happen.

The gender imbalance hasn't hit that desperate point yet.
Call me a pessimist, but I think the "millions of angry furstrated young men follow demagogue du jour to war because, rightly or wrongly, they think that will win them brides" point would be reached much sooner.
However, there is some optimism that with the rising economic power of China and India, the situation will also improve for women.

http://www.cddep.org/blog/posts/“mi...der_imbalance_debate_and_public_policy_part_2
I'd put my money on this. Prosperous people in a technological economy are more likely to value all children -- in part because economic benefit of a son is not as great any more.
 

Back
Top Bottom