You wouldn't think so .. but look at how many baby girls are left to die in China.

Think of this more of a 'devils' advocate' remark than anything else mainly because I can't fathom abortion simply due to gender but I am wondering something. See, I'm a mom. I have four sons. I also have a tubal. So pregnancy isn't my first thought, but if I were to become pregnant (rare but nor entirely unheard of after a tubal) and it was a girl, even though I have a lot of medical problems during pregnancy (I've been told quite clearly not to get pregnant again) would it be ok for me to keep it? And, since that question sounds benign enough, the other side of the coin, if it were a boy, would the opposite be ok as well?

Like I said, it's a what if scenario since it's all unlikely to happen at all, but hey, what if? And no, I don't need a reply. I was just sort of wondering and thought I'd throw it out. I really don't mean to troll. Just wondering is all.

Just wait, the Flintstones are still at work and they have plenty to say about your reproductive rights, and the health of their dinosaurs.

Chris:

Too funny. : )

Athyna:

The drawbacks of being pro-choice is that I have to leave those decisions up to the woman carrying the child. That said, I am "conditionally" pro-choice: The woman AND the man (if the man is in her life) should both have a say in this decision -- at least in my opinion.

So, I'd say talk it over with your husband -- hypothetically-speaking -- and then do what your best judgment tells you to do.

Athyna, you've already made your choice by choosing to have your tubes tied when you were told that another pregnancy could cause you grievous bodily harm. That also means that another pregnancy could kill you. And as a mother, you want to be around for your husband and for your sons. That accounts for your decision to be sterilized, and to be consistent, it would mean that if your ligation spontaneously reversed itself (it happens, and it happens with vasectomies, too) and you became pregnant, you would abort that pregnancy. You've already put your life and the lives of your husband and sons ahead of the life of any other potential child and that's the sane and right thing to do.

I highly recommend reading Unnatural Selection, a book on the unbalanced sex ratios in various Eastern countries. The book does a great job of describing how Western obsession with Eastern population growth in the 70s was a major contributor towards this unbalance, and the dangerous results (namely, incredible trafficking of women from poorer regions, sometimes voluntarily, often not). When I read this article, I immediately thought of how these types of technology contributed to the skew - and my belief in being Pro-Choice was shaken as I read about 7 and 8-month abortions.

That said, this article ended poorly, in my mind. What's wrong with the abortion discussion taking place in women's consciences? If you think the clinics are the only "battleground" now, I have to wonder if you are sexist (i.e., doesn't consider the childbearer to be intelligent enough to be a highly important part of the discussion).

Pro-choice all the way. When a man can have something the size of a watermelon come out of his LITTLE wee wee, he'd think again. Hey, this may even start a discussion that if it's a boy, dump it. Only keep a quota. They are here for two reasons anyway.. pro-create and lift heavy things. Other electronic devices do a MUCH better job of everything else. Yes, men, women fake it and probably to get it over with.

How do they fake the big wet spot on the sheets?

People, please. Remember one of the main reasons that China and other countries on that side are having a huge gender gap is because of economics. In China, a girl/women can not inherit her parent's wealth or property. This makes it so families want a boy so that they can pass on the families possessions. In India, parents of a Girl have to pay a HUGE Dauri (Spelling?) when marrying them, so again, people prefer boys. If we could change those to major obstacles, the ratio would become much closer as the overall desire for a boy would drop.

Did you know that the Hindu holiday of Tikka, and of Karva Chauth and several others are dedicated to the value of women in our lives, as mothers, sisters, wives etc. ?

Probably hard for a nation that doesn't have many cultural strongholds of their own to accept that....

Funny soooo funny

Having a baby is a much worse health risk for the woman than aborting it. Check the research.

I agree 100%! I wish more people understood that while they are not ideal, abortions must remain legal for the safety of women.

I think most women would agree abortion is never taken lightly...

Men should also have a right to have the child aborted or not since they are half of the reason why the child will be born.

Lori, having an abortion is a much worse health risk than not getting pregnant. And in fact, having sex is a health risk also (cancer, infection, etc)

janellect: It's much more dangerous to a woman's health to carry a pregnancy to term than to have an abortion. The rate of death from childbirth is ten times greater than the death rate from abortion. Educate yourself: http://www.earlyabortionoptions.com/abortion-information/abortion-risks.html

note: please re-read my post.

What the heck Lori, I'll jump in and let the hate begin. The article is not about whether carrying a baby to term is safer or more risky than having an abortion. It is about whether or not it is ethical to terminate a pregnancy due to the gender of the fetus. I'm not really certain how a woman (or parents-to-be) could possibly (at least in the US) make a decision that is more self-centered and self-indulgent than having a gender-biased abortion. There are no baby or mother associated health risks with one gender over the other so that can't be it. Its pure unadulterated selfishness. I don't want a girl, so I'll abort it (pout, pout).

And remember (here's where the hate begins) abortion is never safe for the fetus. Abortions result in a 100% mortality rate for the fetus.

Always have been and always will be a supporter of a woman's right to choose whether or not to have a baby. Finding out what gender the child will be shouldn't determine their decision to abort or not.

Why place limitations on a woman's choice? Why is this choice different from any abortion choice?

One of my first adventures on newsvine was an epic discussion on what was in the womb. After pages and pages of posts, after quite a few days, I finally got one of them to admit that what was in the womb was in fact a unique child, never to have another chance at life.

However, this made no difference in their opinion.

Therefore, I won't get into that here. However, I found a curious relationship between abortions, birth rates, and the liberal agenda.

If one takes a look at how many live births occur per year versus how many abortions, the US birth rate is reduced via abortion by roughly 20%. I was surprised at how high this figure was.

By not having new workers to support the wagon riders, the time until fiscal collapse (and the end of liberalism) is shortened, probably by a generation or so. Look up "social security recipients per taxpayer" or thereabouts, and you'll understand what I mean. To thrive, liberalism needs an ever-increasing birth rate. The EU is finding this out, and we're next.

As much as I despise the idea of government babysitting and appreciate the hastened collapse of socialism that wholesale abortions provide, I must say that the whole thing is eerily self-destructive on a human scale, and beyond my comprehension.

@theonlylolking, I can't agree. Unmarried men should have the choice as to whether or not they accept parental responsibility (including financial support) if the woman decides to carry to term, but men cannot be given rights over her personal/medical decision-making concerning abortion.

THANK YOU! They are going to continue people... you can't stop it. If you try, women will just cross to Canada or go overseas to get it done. If illegal here, they will do it anyways.

I find it absolutely hilarious that rickeroo is trying to scare everyone into spurning abortion by pretending that everyone is going to end up on social security.

ROTFLMAO

G-Dog- 100% correct.

When we start valuing women as much as men, and when women are truly equal, then sex selection abortions will be a thing of the past.

I agree that sex selection is a terrible reason to have an abortion but that does not mean abortion should be illegal. Having terminated a pregnancy due to fetal abnormalities (the child was "incompatible with life"). It's a tough choice and to force someone to carry a child that they know will die is unacceptable.

@Lee - I'm sorry about your son or daughter, I truly am. That was a very difficult decision you made.

My son was with us for 9 months in utero. He died before I delivered him, and I knew he had died. I chose to deliver him with no medication, so I could be with him and parent him as best I was able for every possible moment I had, which would be entirely too few for me. His siblings and grandparents got to come and meet their brother/grandson and it was very loving and beautiful. We have lots of pictures. He is in my heart. There is pain at the death of my son, but we were the best family we could be for that short time we had him.

I would respectfully suggest to parents who find themselves in this situation that they evaluate the joy and beauty they can find in the living presence of their son or daughter in utero, knowing that those brief months are the only time they will get to parent the child. If a child is going to die, it seems to me that a natural death the way God (or nature) intended is much more peaceful for the child and the parent than the premature death of the child at the hands of the doctor. I would also respectfully suggest that the inconvenience of being pregnant and birthing a child only lasts up to 9 months, while the grief that comes from taking one's own child's life lasts a lifetime. Indeed the grief of losing a child in any way likely lasts a lifetime (it's not been 5 years yet for me, so I'm guessing). But there is much peace and joy that comes with celebrating the special child that my son is, even if he isn't with us.

No condemnation is meant in any way here. I just wanted to present an alternative view for parents of precious children who will not grow up here.

stonegarden:

is trying to scare everyone into spurning abortion by pretending that everyone is going to end up on social security

Ah, but everyone will end up on the government dole sooner or later, which will result in the pyramid collapse, regardless of how many abortions are performed. We are doomed finanically anyway. The abortion rate merely modifies the time frame.

Abortion is an intensely personal decision, based on more than one factor. Men who argue for a stake in the decision are really demanding control over it. If I want one and my companion does not, I have to remain pregnant? If I don't want a child and he does, I'm forced into having a baby I can't care for? If I have a child and he opts out of paying child support or otherwise acting like a father, the child loses a lot more than the mother.

Men have the option of using birth control too, and in that moment is when they make their choice about dealing with a pregnancy, not months down the road when they learn they have to live with the outcome of not using a condom. If they worry about the condom failing, they can decline to have intercourse altogether. For Pete's sake, accept some responsibility with the risk and stop acting like everything is the woman's fault!

I'm sorry I don't want to be rude but if you truly think that you are delusional. It's already happening except outside the body, parents are using IVF to control and decide the gender of their child already.

And as for the well we'll keep trying till we get what we want, those days are over at least for responsible parents. People can't raise and support multiple children as in the past.

As far as the US it isn't about wanting just boys, thankfully some want a girl. But because we are having fewer children, often only one the parents are going to decide, if it's quick, easy and cheap to find out the gender and they're only going to have one, then they might as well have the one they want.

And therein lies the problem 'the one they want', which is selfish. I'm not going to go in about religion and those beliefs but rather mother nature and the way of nature and the world around us. When left to it's own devices a society will conceive more males than females, more males are lost to miscarriage, infant death and child hood illnesses and accidents and that follows into the teen years and early 20's, and about this time the ratio of males to females has just about evened out.

When we tamper with this in anyway as China has their becomes an incredible imbalance and nature is thrown out of whack, and what usually happens if you study archeology/sociology you'll learn that when there's an overpopulation of males, then war breaks out. China is having major problems due to the imbalance, thousands upon thousands of males have given up on ever getting married and having children, there are whole shanty type villages that have formed that are dominated by all males, because they have nowhere else to go and many can't find work or it's minimal at best.

In the US it's not so much that we desire primarily males, females are wanted and desired almost as much. The problem comes in that in China they were forced into one child per family and males were preferred, in the US we're choosing to limit our families to one child and many people have a preference, with males being only slightly dominant, not 100% as in China. Or we limit our families to two now and most people believe that one of each gender is ideal, so the first one nature picks the second the parents, which will cause an imbalance at some point and it may be that females become dominant, here in the US there's no way to tell just yet.

But you're kidding yourself if you don't believe American's will choose, they already do and this will make it that much easier and with the prescription 'abortion' pill, it's all done privately. And I wonder what that will do to the psyche of the women who use this method several times to try and attain the 'perfect' family. It's very selfish to choose over what nature intends when it comes to gender selection.

"So many people are against abortion here" Uh, NOT. Don't like it - move on out.

Gracie- No, I am not delusional, and I think you missed my point. Allow my to clarify:

My entire point was that I doubt that early gender detection will spur tons of abortions. And if someone is willing to abort over gender, then its probably a good thing they are having one. We do not have the same type of societal pressure to have a child of a certain gender and we also do not have child rearing limits in this country (though sometimes I think we should)

@ Reba- Perhaps I should clarify that I am pro-choice and support a women's right to chose. But I am not wrong in saying that many people are against abortion in this country. Have you seen the recent laws in SD? What about that poor doctor who got shot by some anti-abortion lunatic. The christian church has typically been very vocal about their anti abortion stance, and many people are dedicated to outlawing abortion.

Did you know that the Hindu holiday of Tikka, and of Karva Chauth and several others are dedicated to the value of women in our lives, as mothers, sisters, wives etc. ?

Probably hard for a nation that doesn't have many cultural strongholds of their own to accept that....

Funny soooo funny

I'm pro-choice, but I wouldn't have an abortion and I don't know anyone who would without a great deal of anguish. I'm amused, or perhaps bemused, by the effort of some to insist that gender-bias in this country will take off like hotcakes with the knowledge that the fetus is either male or female.

As for China, I lived there for five years and never once saw a baby dying in the street. They don't kill baby girls in hospitals. They do abort them. Their strong preference for boys is now being replaced by a panic that those boys won't have wives, so trust me, the message is getting through that girls are becoming valued again. Societies self-correct, so stop obsessing over some illogical outcome of a genetic test!

Pretty much is in South Dakota and Kansas.

Just drive an hour and have it done. Or just go to Canada. They are free there!

Sigh Reba -- that's not the point. Besides, you've obviously never BEEN to South Dakota or Kansas or you'd discover there are very few places you can drive to "in an hour".

And people should not HAVE to drive to Canada for something that is SUPPOSED to be legal in the U.S.

Also, complications from later-term abortions (abortions are safest in 1st trimester). Anyone who thinks a woman who would want an abortion at first is going to discover the miracle of pregnancy is flat delusional.

more information, so the woman can make her choice as early as possible

Do you think most women are making their choice based on gender or propensity for hereditary illness (or any other info available through genetic testing) currently?

Women do make a choice... if the baby has down's syndrome it is up to the parents to determine what their life may be like. Some think great, some think it is a horrible thing to do to a person.

Reba-587597

Touche.

I'll maintain that it's relatively uncommon, but after an ultrasound which evinced markers of Down Syndrome (or other chromosomal irregularity), this technology could be a boon to a woman facing a difficult choice.

LoriMSNBC said:

NOT troubling. Sounds great - more information, so the woman can make her choice as early as possible. Safest for her, and saves a lot of money and trouble for society.

You forgot to ask someone...

a very, very, very small someone...

The battle is between God and the woman - NEVER us.

Fake imaginary beings have no place here.

What a statement! Based on what I see in the news, not all consciences are formed to the same degree. Individuals shouldn't be deciding who gets to live or die-that cheapens the value of life for all of us.

Whether you believe or support in abortion is not the whole of this particular topic.

But rather should we be usurping mother nature for our own selfish reasons? There is a reason for the male to female ratio in nature. Look very closely at China, all of China and see what the imbalance has done to that country. You may have to dig a bit but the imbalance has caused them more problems than they are admitting to. To abort a fetus based on gender and gender alone is discrimination and it's telling the world that one gender is better or preferred over the other and that is not what we need in this day and age.

People in China need to stop "f"ing and learn the birds and the bees. Nah, they are just stupid.

I believe in the right of a women to choose also within limits. The majority of the laws are livable, but I too find this disturbing. I mean, come on, picking a sex? That is just plain wrong!

But the anti-abortion people got no one to blame but themselves. Yea, they will make the testing illegal in many places. But there are going to be far too many places where it will be available. Where there is a will, there is a way. Haven't we learned that the hard way with drugs and prohibition?

You are awesome and I declare that you win this thread. Also, you are a fantastic representative of your gender (I'm assuming your'e male, but even if you aren't).

I thought that ethics was basically "moral philosophy." Morality values life rather than laws, so just because something is legal, it doesn't make it right. And vice versa.

http://psychology.about.com/od/developmentalpsychology/a/kohlberg.htm

Well Richard and CJ, if you think aborting a fetus because its the wrong gender is something that should be protected, someone else probably should be making your ethical decisions for you. And CJ, I don't think Richard "wins this thread" at all.

The definition of morality today is totally, completely, fully and absolutely based on the Bible. FREEDOM OF RELIGION PEOPLE! Just because YOU believe one thing, DO NOT force it on me. Gay marriage is immoral. Who said? The Bibile. Religion again.

Reba, morality is not based on religion. Where did you get that? So all nonreligious types are immoral?

Why does everyone think/believe this is so rare in the US? Because we're more 'evolved' than other countries? Because we value both gender's equally? What a crock, it's already being done and has been done for for a long time. All this does is increase the probability of selfish people using it. We have a boy, we want a perfect family so instead of trying until we get the girl and end up having 4 boys and one girl, which of course is not perfect nor very feasible in today's society, we'll just quietly abort the fetus at home until we get the girl. Or we only want boys/girls. Or we're only having one child so let's get the one WE want, not the one nature needs to keep the gender's in balance.

It's not rare and it's going to get worse.

Bingo. I was one of those.

Because we're more 'evolved' than other countries?

No, because other countries have different cultures where having boys is an obvious economic advantage to the family whereas girls are looked at more as burdens.

All this does is increase the probability of selfish people using it.

If they are going to abort just because of the gender I would rather them take their selfishness out on an embryo than an actual child. I see no good in forcing them to give birth to a child they will only resent or abuse simply because of the gender.

In short, I don't care anyone's reasoning in aborting an embryo. An embryo is none of my business

Amen Androidfanboy. Getting rid of a cell/organism in its infancy (pun) is much better than producing a child and putting it up for adoption/mistreating it, etc.

I am a big fan of adoption and think it is a great option for some people but I also think producing more than 2 kids is irresponsible when you consider how overpopulated the planet is already, so if people can select the gender they want, produce their offspring, and be done having kids, then more power to them.

People can have 0, 1 or 2 kids and NEVER have an abortion. Happens all the time.

janellect, that only happens all the time only when couples, and in particular, only when women, have access to effective and free or extremely low-cost birth control and are free to say NO to any man, including their husband. That doesn't exist. If you don't believe that, then see check out the factors that are responsible for the for the rising rate of HIV infection in third world countries. That's aside from the fact that even the most effective methods of birth control, used properly every time, will still allow conception once in a while. There go your arguments, including your fallacious arguments against abortion.

Janellect, condoms are available practically everywhere in the world.

When are people going to wake up to the fact that choosing your own gender is inherently wrong? By choosing gender nature is thrown out of whack and causes a gender imbalance. Has no one learned anything from China??

android, It's your choice, and none of anyone else's business.

What's the name of that family with 20+ kids? I don't even know why they are on TV because most people think they are morons.

First of all, that "clump of cells" has an identity. If they can determine the sex, they can determine that it is a human baby. NOW what is the excuse? You got birth control, you have the morning after pill...while it really is just a cell...you have the cross your legs method, and you have the myriad other ways of umm...enjoying yourself, without creating a child. There simply is NO excuse to murder a child...who cares whether it is a boy or a girl. In addition, medical scients has NEVER been an exact science. So you're murdering of the child because of some disease it MIGHT develop, is simply that...MURDER.

Yeah, and pro life types have the option of staying the @!$%# out of decisions which don't concern them and for which they are willing to take absolutely no responsibility. ;)

I grew up Catholic and cannot tell you how many families I knew that had several daughters (in one case 7), before The Son was born.

Dude.

I'm a liberal. I don't support banning gender tests. I do support abortion, always. The ethical advice (but not enforcement) belongs between a woman and her doctor. Not this doctor, though.

Careful with your stereotyping.

I agree completely... Gender is a completely legitimate reason, just as I don't want to have a child right now is, and any other number of reasons... If we let our religions dictate what is and isn't a GOOD reason for this choice (or in some really right wing nut job cults they don't even believe you should have a choice), and legislate based on those religions, then we are on a slippery slope people.

I'm glad that at least one conservative seems to support abortion rights!

Android, are you saying that if you are not religious, you don't have to value life? Not saying you can't get an abortion... anyone can. But abortions are not a type of birth control.

It has nothing to do with religion, it has everything to do with nature and the balance of the planet we live on. Do some research, check out the problems in China more carefully, look to the animal kingdom and find out what happens when for whatever reason a gender imbalance occurs. Next it will be height, taller people make more money and are seen as more powerful, so should I have aborted my daughter because her full potential height ended up being 5ft 1in? Or eye color, hair color, skin color, now there's a good one. It's known that lighter skin even among African American's is more desired, what if you could know what shade of skin your child would have, would one abort an ebony black child in favor of a milk chocolate? Some of you may think that these thoughts are far-fetched and ridiculous, well at some point in time that's been said about every medical, scientific discovery.

At one time the Webster's dictionary defined the space rocket as something from a fantasy, an imaginary device, but it came to be. Once you start with one thing, such as gender, it's a slippery slope all the way to the bottom.

1) Please note that this new "test" is NOT NOT NOT 100% accurate! Therefore a whole host of things can go wrong: results can be wrong and even can get switched with other patients' results. Just like "in vitro" was the cool thing but we've seen tragic switches from that method. I recall, with another pre-natal testing, a mother being told her unborn daughter had no brain and that she should just have an abortion. The woman and her husband decided to not have the abortion and it was a good thing because the sonogram, or whatever test had been given, was absolutely WRONG. Their daughter's brain was only compressed somehow and she ended up completely fine.

2) This genetic testing will no doubt lead to more abortions. Abortion is a moral issue. Let's get that straight. It's an evil war on the most fragile of human beings: our unborn---with the mother caught in the middle. I do NOT fault the poor baby's mother. I DO fault big businesses like Planned Parenthood and abortion mill doctors who like to make a big buck by outright LYING to pregnant women and that has been PROVEN. Plus they specifically target minorities. That has been also proven. (I am not a minority but it is still an outrage). Yes abortion has always been a choice---but it is still a deception because it is outright killing another human being who cannot speak for themselves because at that stage they are simply too small. It's just too sad that millions of people have bought into the "choice" marketing spin. That's just what Margaret Sanger seemed to hope for...weed out the "unwanted" babies...something that Hitler took to the extreme. It's very strange that people claim that to be a woman vying for woman's rights, ya gotta be pro-choice...but our women suffragettes were pro-life. ironic.

Morality is a slippery slope. Complex, confusing, a combination of cultural, familial, and historical beliefs mixed with each person's own emotional and passionate ideas - it is many times completely souless. Often refined by an individual's personal guilt and worry - morality decisions often lack positive, compassionate understanding of another person's situation and placement. A perfect example would be how unflexible and immediate reactions are to a trigger conversation or idea - unreflective.

It seems to me to be very difficult to be morally and spiritually enlightened and expect one's decisions to be correct for someone else. Each person needs to arrive at their own place with decisions of their lifetime. The moral structure we create in our society and families and selves serves to act as example and assistance for each other in our learning and decision making, but once we become insistant on dictating and enforcing ethically on someone else's choices - we deny someone else the ability to be fully human as well as ourselves.

The ability to create life is a gift. The ability to choose not to go ahead with that creation is part of that gift. It is both an extremely great honor and an individual burden.
My ability to create and carry life, or choose not to - please never make that decision for me. It is a woman's personal decision to make - for self, for potential baby, and possibly with the partner if one is there for that. I personally feel that if you put all the emphasis on only one aspect of the equation - the "human being who cannot speak for themselves" - you are denying the creative and sacred being of the mother. It is not up to you - is is up to the individual woman.

On a completely other note - as a (delightedly happy) pregnant woman - one of the most common questions I am asked - is - do you want a boy or a girl? The answer for me is I want a healthy and happy baby! But the gender is a huge thought that most people it is their first interest and concern. Because this issue is so forefront in people's minds, there will most likely be a wide reception to the ability to decide on the gender of one's future children. I think it is an issue that demands a deeper reflection by the parents. Is it a valid decision? We do like in our culture to have a lot of control over our lives, but truthfully I think, we cannot really know the importance of each decision or even know of it was the decision to make us happy possibly until the end of our lives. So i personally think in most cases it is good to honor nature and adjust to be happy with both boys and girls - whichever we might have - as every experience in life is unique and we learn how special everyting is by experiencing it only. But I also think that someone could choose that way and everything could still work out just fine.
But my opinion cannot decide that for someone else.
And I think neither should yours.

Did you read my post? I said abortion is more dangerous than NOT getting pregnant.

You're barking up the wrong tree.

janellect, you're the one here who is barking up the wrong tree, and you're doing so by refusing to accept reality.

How about this? A woman gets pregnant and is forced to have the kid. Guess what happens to daddy? Castration.

Reba, you should change your name to man hater. lol

Lori, the reality is that abortion is more dangerous than not getting pregnant. What are you talking about?

when you get to talk to God, he will call it a human life.

Says who? You? Is that because God told you personally? If so, then you are hearing voices again, go take your meds. If not, then you are just making stuff up. I have about as much fear of what happens when I talk to God as I do of Santa not bringing me presents because I've been bad.

How do you know? Did you hear him say it? No. Stop forcing your religious beliefs on others.

The world is overpopulated as it is. Maybe skewing the sex ratio this way will help with that problem.

No you abort the boys. Only keep so many to breed with and handle the others. I bet the country would be in better shape.

Yeah, that's right. Hundreds of millions of aborted females and the associated social impact on large portions of the world population and music piracy.....about the same thing.

For those that don't know why this is a serious issue, read Unnatural Selection by Mara Hvistendahl.

@ Harry: All technology has unintended consequences, whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant. That's just how it is. Fearing the future, just because of those consequences is beyond stupidity. May as well move a boulder in front of the entrance to your cave (houses and locks represent technology, so I'm assuming you don't use them), and shut out the big scary world.

Am I advocating gender specific abortions? Honestly, it's none of my business, that's something a pregnant female, her husband (or boyfriend)...or in the case of a donor, just the female should discuss with her doctor. If/when I ever choose to have a child with my girlfriend/wife, my only real input is that I have no preference. It's really that simple.

People assume that that girls would get the "boot". Nope, it would be the boys that get the boot. that little "Kickstand" is what causes alot of problems in the world.

@ Reba: You assume I wouldn't object to such a thing either. In which case, I'd have nothing to do with such a woman anyway. One is no better than the other, and I'd never want anything to do with a disgusting slag who thought so. Having a child with the person you love, is the point. Choosing the sex, well, seems like a cop out to me.

Luckily for you, since you appear to prefer the electronic way, you actually don't need a man involved at all for procreation, as they're able to extract the required ingredients from two female donors now.

But, bottom line, you have absolutely no say in the decision, because...well, I would never have anything to do with a person like yourself. Do what you will with your own life, stay out of mine and that of my significant other.

If you read some of her other posts, you will see that there is something seriously wrong with Reba. So much so that it appears that no decent man would ever have anything to do with her.

@ Stonegarden: Yeah, I perused some of her anti-male comments above and figured I'd add to my original post, lest she be confused that I somehow would agree with her twisted ideology.

It is an absolute right of the woman to make the decision... married or not. Men have no say. Just remember if she has the baby, that man is going to PAY THROUGH THE NOSE! Mine would - for at least 18 years. Payck GONE.

Murder is not a right.

Well, then, it's a good thing that abortion is not murder.

And who are YOU to tell a woman whose husband threatens to leave her if she carries a child to term, a woman on birth-control who finds herself pregnant, or a woman, who already has 4 mouths to feed on public-assistance, that she has NO right to an abortion?? Do YOU stand in line ready to adopt a child?? No! But I'm sure you are one of the first to COMPLAIN about paying for children's free health care and the WIC Program because your precious tax dollars are going to waste! Love the fetus, hate the child, right evangelical right-wing nuts!!?

Grab him by the balls and the wallet. He'll wish he was dead.

Who cares?

sourcream, truly words of wisdom, thank you.

AMEN

Female supremacists will never win.

The pro-life movement is against all abortions, so they will of course be AGAINST gender selection abortions. The ultra-patriarchal societies of China and India, where they are already doing gender selection, are not Christian, have no tradition of Christianity, so the Bible does not affect their views. And Sourcream, your "Bible quote" about women being olive trees in the kitchen, does not exist anywhere in the Bible, or anything even close to it.

Did you know that the Hindu holiday of Tikka, and of Karva Chauth and several others are dedicated to the value of women in our lives, as mothers, sisters, wives etc. ?

Probably hard for a nation that doesn't have many cultural strongholds of their own to accept that....

Funny soooo funny

But there are valid scientific, sociological reasons for not allowing abortion based on gender alone. Just look to China and India for those reasons, then tell me there is no evidence that we shouldn't allow abortion based on gender.