"“I wrestle with gender-based abortion more than any other reason [for having an abortion]...From a macro perspective, I don’t think it is a good idea for us to be eliminating women. But if you look at it at the individual level, which is what we do, I don’t have any right to say that one person’s reason is better or worse than another’s.”

- Angie Murie, executive director of Planned Parenthood Waterloo Region in Canada

Opinions?

I think the title of this thread is a bit misleading, but I don't actually disagree with her.

The thing is this: if a company offers a service, generally they don't provide it conditionally based on someone's moral compass. If abortion is legal, then it's legal. If its not, it's not. If places like planned parenthood start limiting those services based on a moral issue, then I feel it is the start down the road to making abortion illegal again. Not good.

I may be out on the fringe with this one; if so, I am comfortable there.

That was my thought too Shannon.  Not banning something is not the same as condoning it.  

Good point, Shannon. I didn't write the title, I copied it. Sorry! I edited it now so it says "on" where it used to say "supports".

Perfect, thanks Elsa.

Not that it makes the quote less controversial, but it doesn't light tinder to the fire :-)

I personally think the abortion issue is going to blow up in this country.  We're not used to talking about it, but it's coming to the front now - big time.

This is very distasteful for me. I'm pro-choice, but I'm one of those that believes we should work towards reducing unwanted pregnancies through contraception and education, hence reducing abortions. Just having an abortion because you don't want your child to be a specific sex seems repugnant, not to mention an insult to women who have abortions due to extreme circumstances (rape, medical issues, etc.) and those with infertility issues.

At the same time, I understand that the cultures where sex-selection abortions occur most often are those where many families would experience a reduction in financial security, or some other form of security if they were to have daughters. It's not right to impose my morality on people who are considering the long-term stability of their family with these choices. But then again, these same cultures are facing a shortage of women for their sons to marry, which doesn't support the long-term goal of continuing the family either.

It's a gray area, and I think it's fair to say to either offer the service or don't, it's not up to the provider to examine the reasons. That gets into some uncomfortable gray areas too, ones that our society has already spent too much time in.

We have had similar discussions in Norwegian media lately. About screening of gender ect...My opinion is that as long as abortion is legal, and it's within the 3 month stage, no one can interfere with your reasoning. Bad timing vs gender vs disfigurment vs rape ..... Does not matter .  I'm very pro-right...but offcourse I can see the concern, but it should be dealt with in other  ways.

I think you're right Elsa. I'm geared up to fight what I call the Uterus Police.

I'm a person that thoroughly believes that abortion shouldn't be used for birth control.

That is to say, I disagree that people should decide not to use precautions against pregnancy because they figure they can just get an abortion if they get pregnant, no big deal.

I'd also say that, no, aborting a child simply because you don't like its sex is stupid.

Abortion, to me, should be about "this happened dispite precautions taken to prevent it and now we're all in a situation that is plainly untennable given all the factors involved" - where 'factors involved' equate to anything other than "just can't be bothered" in the simplest of terms.

That said, you can't control any of that. I'd rather have abortions for every one so that those folks that truly need for sound reasons can get it, verses take it away because some people [insert words I can't even think of here].

I'm definitely pro-choice, but I really disagree with using it as a means of gender selection. It's fine if you don't want the child at all, but you don't want it just because it's a girl?? Silly and I would refuse to do it...or maybe I would do it, but with a sword so she bleeds to death and we eliminate them from the gene pool altogether. I hate people.

luci has articulated more or less what I wanted to say. It's very important that every child should be a wanted child, but in this day and age where in the West birth control is pretty well universally available, the carelessness of people which leads to them using abortion as a birth control option, is imo just inexcusable.

I have no religious belief, but I still believe there is *always* a moral dimension to abortion. To use it because you prefer a child of the other gender... well, I'd better not express what I think of anyone who'd do that.

I began my sexual life in the couple of years before abortion or birth control for unmarried people were available in the UK, and I saw (and experienced) some of the horrendous results of that. It's made me more aware of exactly WHAT is involved, including the hormonal and emotional aftermath, not to mention the physical realities. 

So although I would fight hard for the availability of abortion in some circumstances, 'designer choices' don't form any part of those. I hardly need add, I strongly disagree with the lady's statement:  "I don’t have any right to say that one person’s reason is better or worse than another’s.”   I think we all DO have that right, where moral choices are concerned

"At the same time, I understand that the cultures where sex-selection abortions occur most often are those where many families would experience a reduction in financial security, or some other form of security if they were to have daughters. It's not right to impose my morality on people who are considering the long-term stability of their family with these choices. But then again, these same cultures are facing a shortage of women for their sons to marry, which doesn't support the long-term goal of continuing the family either."

Because of my cultural heritage, sex selective abortions is a very sore issue with me.  I liked your insight, curious wanderer.  Just wanted to add this:

In cultures where the ratio of men to women is significantly higher (that is, where there are more men than women), there is also an increase in prostitution, sexual abuse, violence against and kidnapping of women, and STIs.  Salt to an already suppurating wound.

I'm pro-life, but outlawing abortion isn't the answer.  Work towards a goal where abortion isn't needed.  I'm with Luci in that abortion shouldn't be used as birth control.

Sex-selection abortion is personally very repugnant.  Choosing to stop a life because the kid isn't the gender you wanted or your culture favors male over female children - no.  Just no.

People will continue to do this, but that doen't make it right.

Abortion shouldn't be used as birth-control?

That's what it is, it's a form of birth control.

I think what you're trying to say is abortion shouldn't be casual, or a first option or something like that. Fine, don't have one then. 

It makes me sick when people who havn't had an abortion want to talk about how it should or shouldn't be. I'm not saying you don't have right to your opinion, I'm just telling you my guts get knotted up. The fact that you're sitting around making up these fictional situations where you demonize some "Girl x" for having a made up casual abortion... you're out of touch with reality. Go talk to some women whove had to make that choice. Then get back to me with your hot sports opinions on your fantasy abortion scenario. 

I have had an abortion, and without benefit of anaesthetic either; and it was twins (I SAW them). And I nearly died and ended up in the ER and was lucky not to be charged as abortion was illegal. I was 19.

So I think I have every right to give my own opinion on this matter

I think it's honestly, gross.

They must be having awfully late abortions in order to be able to do this, which makes me very sad. I had my sex-determining ultrasound at week 24.

Unless Planned Parenthood are giving the ultrasounds earlier. But then it's not even 100% reliable, so I think it's a stupid practice.

With all the friends I've had who did it all of them were distraught and still have damage left from the abortions.

I think it is one thing to get an abortion. It's another to get it merely for a superficial reason like gender - that to me, is completely callous.

I can't remember what wk gestation I was born at - it was something crazy like 23 or 25 or something. I was supposed to be a Pisces - I'm a Libra.

@Jilly - But you were "just a fetus". -eyeroll-

I hate the "it's not a baby yet" argument.

I honestly think that is a separate (but important) issue from the traditional pro-life/pro-choice debate.  And honestly I don't think a sex-selective abortion ban would do a lot to get to the cause of the issue.  I think people would still find way's to get around the ban/get rid unwanted girls.

So what's the reasoning behind sex-selective abortions? 

A couple of reasons:

1) Certain cultures prize boys over girls

2) An expensive dowry is necessary to marry a daughter

3) Traditionally, families who have only girls will have no one to take care of them in their golden years, as their daughters will be responsible for their husbands' parents.

I was reading an article about it a while ago (and I don't have the link/name of the original article)....  The article was very well written and broke things down in a very nice way.  You can read the article below to get an idea about the issue below. 

To summarize: it was originally thought that economic growth and development in Asia (mainly China and India) would reduce the rates of femicide.  But that hasn't happened.  4 million girls go missing every year.  Some are aborted before birth, others are killed at birth, others don't receive medical care and are undernourished.  And things are not getting better in prosperous areas. 

Why does this happen?  As people have more money, they prefer to have fewer children because they realize that it takes money to educate children.  Also there's the issue of the dowry.  This isn't something that's an issue for the lower and middle classes.  Even for the rich, it can take a lot out of the wallet to pay for a dowry to keep their daughter in the upper class.  In practice, people are hoping for perhaps 2-3 children.  So this is what often can happen.  If the first child is a girl, they'll often let it be (feed her well, educate her, give her proper medical care) because there's time to have a boy.  If the second child is a girl, then the family starts to panic and wonders if they can really afford this (educaion, food, medical treatment and the dowry) and she may not have access to the essentials (food, medical treatment, etc).  These patterns are very common in economically prosperous regions but highly patriarchical regions (Ie Punjab).

Anyways, they suggest that you have to change or at least soften the culture to fix the problem.  Believe me people get around it everyday....  In India, I believe there are laws banning sex-selective abortions.  Offically, I'm pretty sure, expectant parents aren't even told the sexes of their children.  There was a story about a doctor married to another doctor who was threatened by her husband's family because she was pregnant with twin girls.  Her husband's family was telling her that they couldn't afford the cost (the dowry!).  Apparently they triggered an anaphylactic reaction to send her to the hospital to try to trick her into getting an abortion.  Apparently she accuses her inlaws of trying to kill the children after their born.

I think stuff like this happens in North America too.  In BC, they're moving towards a ban on telling you what the sex of the fetus is.  With South Asian populations, sometimes women are asked "if they'll be safe if your told your carrying a girl".  Anyways, people wouldn't be making these suggestions if there wasn't a problem.  So if you REALLY want to do something for the missing girls, go after the real problem: the cultural practices/values. 

http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2011/09/23/india-and-china-responsible-for-many-of-the-world%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98missing%E2%80%99-women/

I agree with Cecile that the core issues are the cultural ideals/values that make people do this. I am all about freedom and equal rights but I don't think that abortion is a woman's right. In the depths of my heart I feel that it is murder. And I do know what it feels like to have an unintended pregnancy, i was pregnant at 17.

My beliefs are probably colored by the fact that I've had two miscarriages and a stillbirth. And also by the fact that I feel that if you are having sex it means you are accepting the possibility of a possible child as no methhod of bc is 100 percent foolproof. I don't agree but I can understand someone having an abortion as a result of rape but yeah, to think of someone who wanted a child but is willing to abort due to gender is morally reprehensible. I feel that no matter what your cultural beliefs are, as a living human being some things are just wrong

A couple things, which may be slightly redundant but I'm gonna add them

1.  My uterus has yet to be occupied by another human.  I intend to keep it that way, for a variety of reasons.  Just to get that out there - I don't think having a uterus, previously occupied or not, makes singly qualified or unqualified on a topic, but it seems to matter to some.

2.  Not having had one, I am reaching a bit, I can't imagine abortion is a pleasant experience.  I don't for one moment believe that Roe v Wade changed the cultural landscape (US) so much that women are blithely going around having abortions because they can!  It's been 40 years - there must be data, but I haven't looked.  I'd say I will, but honestly I know I don't have time today or tomorrow.

3.  I still firmly FIRMLY believe that any time you put a qualification on it that is judgment (morality, not medical risk) based, the slide toward completely outlawing them has begun.  There's greater risk in making abortion illegal, than there is letting a small percentage of people whose character and morals don't meet to someone else's standards, have abortions.  (Superfluous commas, I know, but it makes that sentence slightly easier to read.)

So in line with point 3, my opinion is also superfluous to the argument.  My choices, my morals, completely immaterial.  

And that's all I have to say, about that.  http://youtu.be/WJ_yQ02xwsM

Edit to add that I cross posted with Ad Astra, and was not directly responding to her post.  Lest I be misunderstood!

I think that having an abortion because the baby is the wrong sex is pretty damn shallow. But I think that a lot of reasons for an abortion are shallow. Every abortion isn't the result of rape or incest!!!! Actually, the only two women that I personally know who had become impregnated as a result of rape or incest had their children. When I asy I am pro-choice, it means that I am willing to allow the woman to make the decision. Even if I think the decision is crap!. So I agree with the executive director of planned parenthood.

Since when did girls become the 'wrong sex' ? Fuck me !!! THAT reason to abort, in an advanced stage of pregnancy no less; makes my blood boil. The shittiest part is, while I'd like to think that cultures where sex-selective abortion and infanticide against girls are getting their just desserts -- as in, not enough wives to go around -- things are actually getting much worse for the women who do exist ! There are many instances, for example, where a man will marry, and then he shares his wife with his brothers or cousins; and she has no say in the matter. She's forced to care for more than one man, and bear whatever child she becomes pregnant with; regardless of whom the father is. So potential women are being exterminated like vermin, and the women who do get here are bearing the brunt bad choices of the preceeding generation. Where does the unfairness end ?

Shannon I wish you were right but there are women in this country - where it's pretty easy to get a free abortion on demand even though there are supposed to be tight legally sanctioned reasons - who have multiple abortions, eg I've read of eight or even eleven. So in effect they are using it as birth control, ie not bothering to take responsibility for preventing unwanted pregnancies. I do find that abhorrent, and incomprehensible

That may well be, BP - it's outside of my experience, so I can't speak to it, honestly.  But things may be different there than here, as well.  I just don't know.

(the early part of your post - not the last, clearly.)

Crazy feminist moment: I think that abortions (and birth control) are masogynistic tools used by men to change women from powerful life-creating creatures, to sex toys. And then, to add insult, they've gotten women as a whole to think that birth control is feminist. Makes me agree.

(doesn't mean I want to make abortions or bc illegal, p.s.) 

@blessedwhitney: I think it's a little OT but I see your point.

PixieDust -- anything related to abortions just makes me think of this and get mad. Nevermind that someone/thing (depending on viewpoint) is going to get killed/not be able to live because of their gender.

I don't support sex-selection abortions or those done as whimsical birth control.

On another note, what happens if they actually aborted the desired sex? Doctors thought I was a boy until I came out, lol. It's not that uncommon an occurance either. You just don't know for sure until the baby comes out.

Also, the sad thing about it in Asian countries is if it's a girl, they may just abandon or sell her. :/

shannon "I think the title of this thread is a bit misleading, but I don't actually disagree with her. "

Totally agree with both your posts - if you're on the fringe, then I'm right there with you.

To me this is two things being thrown in together - cultural relativism and abortion rights. I'm not going to touch on the abortion part right now because I don't think it's enforceable - people will always find ways. What I am interested in is knowing how many Americans hold diversity and individual rights as a priority.

No matter what legislation or poicies there are in place, people will be limited by their blind spots, prejudices, and cultural excuses to cover up people's lack of willingness to change their views and their lives, and their culture by disregarding it as a growing thing we all contribute to. I hear this sort of thing all the time, and it makes me laugh when it's a blatant cover, angry if it's a deeply ingrained fear and need for dominance to cover up lack of courage to change things.

As an example, in Chinese, a daughter of a rich person (and now used for a lot more generally for women across classes) is called "daughter of a thousand gold" because of the exorbitant costs it takes to raise them and maintain them in times past, and now educate them in style. Traditionally, they pride themselves on their children being coddled and having the best of everything - and for women, it was to not do anything productive - so as to prove how wealthy they were. I can't speak for other cultures, but in my studies, experiences, and personal family stories, it took people with minds and hearts to change things - or my great-grandmother would have been hobbling around with damaged feet in tremendous pain for her entire life instead of working with her husband to make sure my grandmother had a chance to receive a hard-earned education and her freedom.

I know it sounds like the dark ages for those of you lucky enough to belong to cultures that have been doing otherwise for centuries, but don't forget it wasn't that recently we got women the vote, to work outside the home or farm, and to have an education. Don't forget this. I won't. (And I'm not a card-carrying feminist, but I believe every person should be able to have these things in this day and age.)

I am pro-choice, and comfortable with my uterus's private property rights. 

That being said, gender specific abortions make my lip curl for many reasons. It's not that the mother was molested, or harmed, or her health is at risk. It's not that she doesn't want to be a mother, or have a child. It's that culturally, having son's is seen as more valuable than having daughters.

I also wonder if native Chinese women in China now have their pick of the entire male population when/if they decide to marry or partner, as they could be a limited, and valuable resource in tradition minded China. My merc/pluto gears turn, and wonder if men saw the outcome of their cultural patriarchy in foresight, or if this scenario wasn't really considered.

From what I know of many countries that have men significantly outnumbering women, they are more prone to violence, especially towards women than other countries.

I read once that the most powerful thing a woman can do to harm a man is to withdraw her female presence from his life. The examples given were prisons, and the military. That kind of sums up what I worry about if gender specific abortions ever caught on here in the states. :(

"I think you're right Elsa. I'm geared up to fight what I call the Uterus Police."

Shannon, wow, I will definitely start to use term when ever I end up discussing not only abortion but reproduction politics in general. I tend to agree both with The Planned Parenthood Director and you on the issue. I have first hand experience, in a country where abortion is considered de facto on request first trimester.

But what ever my personal feelings were on the choice (5th house Moon), I had to agree with a fiercely Libertarian male friend seeing me through the experience (and I must say, I lost one female friend over this), who thought making women seeking abortion fill a questionary (where I crossed something like seven socio-economic factors as well as a possible fetal defect one due to a day-after pill fail) is degrading.