Sweden rules 'gender-based' abortion legal

reply to post by Unregistered

---

Unregistered...
I was agreeing with you ...all until you screwed it all up with that last sentence.
::shakes head:::
You need to work on your ATS skillz. haha

Stories like this make me sick, there are those in the world who would kill for the chance to have a child of any sex but are infertile or unable and then there are those that only want a particular sex, which to me smacks of nothing more then having a child for show.
I can agree with abortions if either the child to be isn't going to have much of a chance in life or has severe disabilites or the mother would be in danger, but to have a choice such as this reeks of 'celebrity' like the small dogs only bought to be put in a purse.
I don't want a girl, I want a boy so kil the faetus, what an ethical world we live in, a child is for life not just for christmas....

reply to post by DataWraith

---

its too bad the rest of the world doesnt feel this way.
two.
three.

And why not? Who are you to say what a woman can or cannot do with her body? You're pro-life and that's fine, it's your choice and it's what you believe. So naturally, you wouldn't have an abortion (if you were a woman) or would be against your own daughter having one if she wanted one. Fair enough.


But as you're your own person, so are the women who opt for abortions, when it's legal. And if the law says they can and does not discriminate based on a basis of knowing the gender and not wanting that one, then what's the problem? It's her life and her body and above everything else -- her decision. Not yours or mine or anyone elses.

Financial markets failing due to corruption and lies, govt's abusing power, terrorism/freedom fighters, poverty, famine, disease, illness. These are issues the world struggles with.

Not abortion. How does abortion make the world a bad place?

I think the 'state of the world' is partly down to people telling other people what they should be doing and often trying to use religious morality to enforce it, though I'm certainly not implying that's what you're doing here, so please don't take it that way.

reply to post by noonebutme

---

I get what you are saying, but there has got to be an end somewhere to the madness. I dont care what people do to themselves, it is their body and their lives as you have stated. Its not my place to interfere with that, but when it comes to abortion, its not just them on the issue, its the lives that they are destroying because they can not handle their own responsibility for creating life. In my opinion, a woman should be able to do whatever she pleases with her body, just not the lives of others(which in my opinion include unborn children).

Of course, simply stating that the law as currently written has this loop hole is not the end all to this issue. They need to plug that hole. China is paying for its pro male situation and has a very unbalanced population. So are men going to be forced into homosexuality rather than honor their inborn preferences, as sexuality and love is a basic need of all people?

I'm pro choice in the first trimester only. Anything else is infanticide. The only reason its allowed past the first trimester in the US is due to the luciferean nature of those pulling the strings, so this brutal dismemberment of babies is akin to a child sacrifice.

I'm also for genetic upgrades and one day we will have very healthy, long lived, children. However, the sex of the baby needs to be left alone. Nature knows best.

There is no such thing as pro abortion. You can't say "I'm in favour of killing babies" unless you're King Herod, or something. It's pro choice and on the whole I support it.

But...I completely draw the line here. Gender-based abortions are a dirty little secret underground industry, and the resultant demographics are proving to be a real problem with the cultures that practice it.

But to give it a judicial pass? Reprehensible!

reply to post by Common Good

---

I know what you mean and that's a good point and it's where I fall down in my logic, I'll openly admit that.

I'm all for the individual's right to freedom and personal choice in all aspects of their life, goivt and religion be damned.

So then how do I support one's right to abortion yet still maintain my stance on individual freedom when there's the unborn child involved? I don't know.

And honestly, I don't have any valid, logical arguments against it. While I disagree with you, I can't back up anything I feel with any decent answer because I'm just very ambivolent towards the whole thing.

I really only see it from the woman's point of view. Perhaps that's wrong, and perhaps that's my way of nulling out the logical incongruity in my entire argument, but it's just how I choose to see it.

But again, I do recognise what you mean. And if I can come up with an answer better than, "I simply don't care", I'll definitely post it.

"I'm all for the individual's right to freedom and personal choice in all aspects of their life"

no flaw in the logic. A fetus is not an individual- it is attached to the mother

an "individual" child can't vote, buy a gun or get drunk legally.

reply to post by noonebutme

---

Damn, I rarely see that on ATS. Honesty.
You sir are a good man. Kudos.

reply to post by ScreamtheDance

---

You really didnt just say that did you ?
NO S*** the child cant vote, its in the damn womb.
And just because it hasnt popped out does not mean that its not alive.
And to say that its not its own seperate entity because its "attatched to the mother" is to say that it doesnt have its own soul, that it doesnt get its own soul or freedom until the cord is cut? Is that your logic?
Wow.

The whole abortion debate is academic.

Unless you want to go back to the days where young women were inserting coat hangers into themselves out of pure desparation, you have to accept that abortion is a necessary evil and regulate it accordingly.

The practice of aborting babies because of their sex is no different than aborting babies out of pure convenience.

Ultimately, they both help population control and perhaps that's the only good thing we can say about it.

"And to say that its not its own seperate entity because its "attatched to the mother" is to say that it doesnt have its own soul, that it doesnt get its own soul or freedom until the cord is cut? Is that your logic? "

lol. it is not my logic. it is empirical evidence.
it is not an individual. "own soul" lol not religious - since there is no evidence of a "soul" .

in essence your stunned that someone does not beleive in "souls" and
that a fetus is not an individual- with rights- does the fetus get a passport when traveling along with the mother?

lots of different ideas out there. no big deal.

reply to post by ScreamtheDance

---

We-ell.. ok, but I don't think many people would say that the ability to drink and buy a gun are the main virtues of being considered an individual.

I think there's a great deal more to it than that, and as I posted above, I'm really unsure how to classify it as it's just so open to subjective interpretation, being it religious, spiritual, biological or semantic.

think if a murderer kills a pregnant woman they charge them with two murders. In criminal court the law is making the asumption of an individual.

Wonder if they found out the mother was pregnant but was planning to have an abortion if it would matter? ol lawyer stuff

reply to post by ScreamtheDance

---

The empirical evidence shows that it is a "human life" and that entirely biologically and genetically without reference to souls etc. It seems then that people are willing to terminate human life on the spurious grounds of "personhood" etc. A two year old child cannot vote, buy a gun or get legally drunk and depends upon others as much as a child in the womb, does this mean it can be terminated? Perhaps an appeal to the trauma mother's who commit infanticide endure might be made some time in the future to justify it?

The coathanger was often resorted to to avoid the moral shame of an "illegitimate" pregnancy - a failure on the part of the Christian consensus which the last forty years has appropriately corrected as we have witnessed the slaughter of innocents. Unfortunately, in this same period "moral shame" as a motivation has been replaced with "economic shame."

To suggest there is no "pro-abortion" just "pro-choice" is equivalent to saying 70 years ago "I'm not anti-jewish, just pro-lebensraum." If nobody "is in favour of killing babies" then lets stop it.

OH, abortion debates are so emotional. Here is my 2 cents worth. I am pro choice, meaning I don't have the right to tell someone else what they can or cannot do with their body. Personally, for me, abortion would never be an option, but I wouldn't kick my daughter out of the house if she got one.

I do have a problem with people who use abortion as a means of birth control. (Not talking about rape here). I am talking about the oops I got drunk and had unprotected sex crowd.

What happened to personal responsibility for our actions? What happened to it's 10PM, do you know where your children are? I think if more parents paid attention to their children we would have a lot less teen pregnancies, and a lot less need for abortions.

How did you we go from just say NO, to passing out condoms in school?

If you let people start aborting for gender then you open a whole new can of worms. Is it legal to abort a child that will be born with a birth defect? What if the defect is only minor? Is it still OK then because the parents don't want to be inconvenienced? Once you allow it for one person, you have to allow it for all and then it just turns into an abortion free for all.

I guess that it keeps the population down, but that's really cold if you think about it.

And one more thought. At what point does the government get to step in and say OH, you're on welfare, you have to abort because we don't want you to have anymore kids?

lol. yes, the grand protectors of mankind. lol

they could be helping a poor old psychotic drunk in the street- but that is an inferior cause (inferior because saying "killing a baby is bad" - who can disagree! they must be right. lol- moral highground turned upside down

the issue is personal rights- rights granted and increase as we age.
your suggesting that a fetus is a baby- it is not- its a fetus

your suggesting that someone who has come to the conclusion that they want to have an abortion is a "murderer" . And if they follow through instead of - "ah , tough time, tough decision- life is no bowl of cherries, let me help any way i can" ...its.."murderer!" lol.

glad you have your theories- fine- the difference is "pro-choice" doesn't
tell you how to live, preach morals or get in your face.
big difference in my mind. (nazi anaolgy- lol anti-abortion folk be crazy)

people are split on this issue- which is why it is never resolved



[edit on 13-5-2009 by ScreamtheDance]

I live in Sweden. And my opinion on this?

I don't like people who would abort a child because he or she is a boy or girl. Nor do I like people who use it to get away from a sticky situation they've gotten themselves into. Nor do I like situations were the men have no say in it.

But I'm still pro-choice. As in choice by both parts, not just one. But people really need to learn to appreciate life more than they do. Abortion is a last resort, a decision that people make too flippantly these days. If you want to make an abortion, acknowledge that you are in fact preventing a kid from getting a life on this planet. Feel free to do it, but remember that you are taking a life because of your own stupidity and thoughtless actions. At the very least, feel guilty.

Makes me want to throw up what this world is coming to.

In the UK abortions for cleft palate or club foot are allowed after the 24 week limit. In most countries with legalised abortions the limits on the reasons for an abortion are minimal up to a certain time limit and there are caveats to allow abortions after that time limit including "psychological harm" to the mother.

Abortion law is appalling, the constant mention of "rape/incest/ill health" suggests these are the majority cases when in fact they are such a minority as to be almost statistically insignifigant compared to the abortions of convenience/irresponsibility carried out.

Various groups lobbied against a specific ammendment outlawing abortion for club foot/cleft palate and as we see there is resistance to the gender/racial discrimination bill in the US.

I guess its inevitable the discussion gets broadened to abortion in general but still I think the focus might be continued on the revulsion at the story in the OP and also the question of how much the "right to choose" does actually serve the feamle interest.