I don't think it's the test that's the problem, it's people's morals (or lack thereof) that are the problem. Like someone deciding they will have an abortion because of this or that. If you can give someone a reason to justify their actions they will take it and run with it.

One word to all the anti-abortionists: Adopt.

Abortion IS murder. Just because you have not come out of a the womb complete that does not mean it is ok to kill someone. Murder is a crime and so should abortion.

Murder is defined by our legal system. And abortion is not considered murder. So sorry.

Further, a fetus before 26 week isn't the same as a baby in terms of development, cognition, complexity, etc. Removing life support from a vegetative state person isn't murder, and abortion isn't either for the exact same reasons.

In response to Greenwood10: Many technologies can be used for good or evil. There was once great concern that the ability to clone genes would lead to great harm. Instead, it has led to new medical treatments and other benefits. In some countries, laws may be needed in order to prevent excessive sex selection. Most people are not evil and will make wise choices.

"theonly", abortion is not murder. It's a legal medical procedure. You contrary opinion does not change the fact.

Knowing the gender of your baby could make it much more difficult to choose abortion. I'm pro-choice, but finding out the fetus is actually a girl or a boy would certainly give me pause before I made my choice.

@ula_ashore

Why would it give you pause? Whether a boy or a girl shouldn't matter to the parents. I have a little girl on the way and I would be just as happy regardless of the gender.

The fact that it would give you "pause" shows that the ethics argument is valid.

I think she is saying that it would give her pause because she is more likely to think of the person growing inside her as just that. Some people just think of fetuses as "a bunch of cells". Once a gender is established - I tend to agree that is difficult to not attribute "more humanity" to that "ball of cells". That is what she is saying and frankly, I tend to agree.

Gender is irrelevant, knowing it is not. Thank you Melissa for getting the point.

Gender is determined at the very second the egg is fertilized by the sperm (as it is determined by whether the sperm carries a X or a Y chromosome). If having a gender is what should keep people from having abortion, then there shouldn't be any abortion.

And Ula, I don't quite understand why "finding out the fetus is actually a girl or a boy would certainly give me pause before I made my choice". Can't you guess that it has to be one or the other (or both?). What other option is there?

Hopefully this will stop some abortions as people think more about what they are doing (or see the light) but I am sure the feminist groups are not going to like anything that dissuades people from having abortions.

If you were truly a 'truth seeker', you'd understand that emotions aren't black or white, and pregnancy is an emotional state as well as a physical one. By making your argument, you fail to understand that it DOES make a difference, that gender identifies the human being. You're missing an opportunity to actually advance a pro-life agenda, because having the ability to relate to your baby boy or your baby girl makes choosing an abortion much more difficult for a lot of women. You may find that illogical, but it's a very real factor.

Rick: (and a few others)

Your flippant comment about "contrary opinion" of those who disagree with you on abortion Smacks of the Nürnberger Gesetze

They think it is murder, you do not. You both have very legitimate reasons for your conculsions and.... You both disagree.

This is America, it is OKAY to disagree.

As as for those who will rush to damn the anti-abortion crowd as small minded, Bible-thumping idiots; not so fast. Nat Henthoff and Kate Mulgrew are both pro-life and both are not Christian. There is a movement called the Conisitent Life ethic which stresses reverence for all life, absention from meat, opposes vivisection, etc. I do not subscribe totally to that view but I respect their opnion.

I am not too keen on unliaterally damning the procedure either. There are times which it is necessary to save a life. But we need to let the patient and the doctor decide this, not some politician and certainly not an activist or a lawyer.

That is the problem - not respecting the person's right to arrive at their conclusions. That is why I cannot stand either the GOP or the Democrats (which I have left) due to their gravitation towards lithmus tests on such moral issues which the goverment can do little good anyway.

Morality is a private decision - concsquences of those decisions, however are not the property of the decision maker.

But Like I said before it is OKAY to disagree. I am just glad My Mom chose to have me.

EngEsq stated:

"Removing life support from a vegetative state person isn't murder, and abortion isn't either for the exact same reasons."

The futures of your two subjects are totally different. There are similarities, though -- each can be defined as an individual through DNA. They are unlike any other human on this planet. Vulnerable, they should both be protected and cared for to achieve their potential. One has little, the other immeasurable.

Other such advances in medical sciences have been used selfishly, without consideration of another's future. This one will, too.

Fights - You are speaking from a Christian point of view. Most of the world population does not share that view. In the U.S. because there is the separation of church & state (smart of the Founding Fathers to beware of religious zealots who would impose their religious beliefs on all of us) for that very reason I don't need or want your God to make my personal decisions or my legal ones.

Science once again offers something that reduces procedures to women and further protects theirs health as well as the health of their child and then..... religion steps in and creates a controversy. It never fails. So obsessed with what could happen and what might happen instead of what's going on.

Do not disagree with you Jessie about POV, but your quote about the reasoning of why the founding fathers incorporated separation of church and state is not accurate. Just do some research and your point will be a little more respected.

Sorry Tim, I disagree. They recognized that the government could not impose on the peoples' religious beliefs OR LACK OF BELIEFS. The government would be neutral.

They also recognized there were those who wanted to escape the oppression imposed on their religions by governments or by other religions.

Right on Jessie,

The aim of our founding fathers was to create a country where one was free to practice a religion within the bounds of constitutional law, but with a religion free governmental process!

ROE VS WADE Look it up sometime its a womans constitutional right to do with her body as she chooses you don't like abortion don't have one but I am sick and tired of you pushing your view of religion off on me so shut the hell up already.

Some people above have tried to claim that since it is law then that makes it morally okay or specifically not murder. Well it is scary that people think that way. If you would look at history and some of the laws that have been in place throughout the world you might think differently. Remember it isn't the law that gives you your rights. The law is supposed to protect rights. Just because the supreme court made a ruling based on a majority of votes does not set the morality or rights issue in stone.

I'm one of those "feminists". Just because I am pro-choice doesn't mean I am pro-abortion. It just means that I think a female should have the right to decide what is best, and it is not up to me, the government or anybody else to influence that decision. I'm pro-choice, but unless there are very extreme extenuating medical circumstances I will never have an abortion.

By the way, this really isn't any new technology. I read about it back in high school in 2006 for a report about controversial medical topics. The book, which I still have, was written in 1998. Back in 1998 this test method was new and only in clinical trials, but it was expected to be available for widespread use within several years. If you are interested in learning about a lot more controversial topics in the medical field that most people have never heard about (and most are quite fascinating) either buy or see if your library has Due Consideration by Arthur Caplan.

@purse carrier, Why are you carrying on about genetics and Diagnostical bull crap. This test only lets you know if it is a boy or girl. Read the article!!!!!

gotit657, you should read the article, as you obviously only read the headline. it states in the article that, this test could help eliminiate invasive procedures that could cause miscarriages.

I am sick and tired of you pushing your view of religion off on me so shut the hell up already.

I'm sick and tired of abortionists pushing their lack of morals on me.

To those who say it is not murder because the law was re-written to allow it:

If the law was re-written to make you legally killable, would that make it any less murder? Think about it. Would you be okay with that?

Abortion is the killing of someone who should be protected, but sadly isn't. As such, it is murder. I am all for prevention. But some actions should not be considered legal choices. And abortion is as much about a woman controlling her body as rape is about a man controlling his. Are you "pro-choice" about that as well? Or do you think there should be consequences?

In what way, Greenwood10, does somebody else's abortion affect you?

Nice try at being a smartass, but you should probably leave it to the professionals.

^ winning...duh!

Pvblivs what the heck are you trying to say? You want to legally kill people and rape them? I'm quite confused by your "logic." You're making a bunch of assumptions, first you place human qualities on an embryo or fetus which physically and biologically is incapable of having said qualities. That is nowhere near the same as murdering a living breathing human being nor raping the same living breathing human being. If you base your opinion on religion...here is some information for you (taken from a CNN article written by a Christian to other Christians):

Unbeknownst to most lay Christians, the vast majority of Christian theologians and saints throughout history have not believed life begins at conception.

Although he admitted some uncertainty on the matter, the hugely influential 4th and 5th century Christian thinker Saint Augustine wrote, “it could not be said that there was a living soul in [a] body” if it is “not yet endowed with senses.”

Thomas Aquinas, a Catholic saint and a giant of mediaeval theology, argued: “before the body has organs in any way whatever, it cannot be receptive of the soul.”

American evangelicals, meanwhile, widely opposed the idea that life begins at conception until the 1970s, with some even advocating looser abortion laws based on their reading of the Bible before then.

Nice try at being a smartass, but you should probably leave it to the professionals.

I wasn't trying to but I will certainly defer to your expertise in this field.

@Jessie, and that is precisely why the U.S. and other countries are all going to hell in a handbasket. We've taken God (who is there by the way whether you believe in him or not) out of everything and you know what God does when countries do that? He removes his protection from them. BTW, might want to study some history, because the majority of the founding fathers were Christian and its throughout their writings. If you don't believe, research my friend, its the truth!

Yes founding fathers were Christian, and Deist, and believed in extra terrestrials (who are there by the way whether you believe in them or not).

Hey beer, you can mock all you want, but EVERY ONE will bow down to our Lord and Savior when he comes back. And I pray for you that its not in fear and trembling but in awe and worship!

Killing humans (if it has a sex then it clearly must be a human, I mean you don't get boy or girl blobs of cells) because they have genetic disorders isn't a new phenomenon. One of the most famous proponents of the eugenics movement was Hitler. He started off murdering the mentally handicap too, and then he moved onto other 'less desirable people', namely the Jews and anyone else he decided shouldn't get the opportunity to live any more. At least we only kill people who can't talk yet, and if we kill them before eight weeks they might not feel it.

Beer:

Are you being deliberately obtuse? No, I do not have any desire to "legally" murder and rape people. That is what the abortion supporters are about. I am pointing out the fact that the "arguments" used to support abortion work equally well for other abhorrent actions. But then, I don't think you are too stupid to have figured that out. I believe you were quite aware of that and just wanted to set up a straw man.

It is still very popular among our Korean and Indian immigrants. Sad, but true.

Sam, it is practiced here in the states. My Gyno does the sex selelction unfortunately. Im pro-life and that really was an issue when he started that in his practice after seeing him for years and helped me concieve my daughter.

yeah why spend money on diagnostic tests when you could buy the latest iPod instead! Clearly the US population agrees with me, Apple just topped the list of most profitable companies.

I think the blood test offers more insight than just gender. If it was just gender I would agree that of all the things to spend money on.

Because getting pregnant just to abort because of gender is wrong. Why would you not want a child based on sex? Tell me? Why does it matter? If you can tell me a good reason, then I will change my mind. If you can't love a child because of their gender, why would you love an ugly child of your own, or a slow learner, or whatever?

It will get to the point where you will abort based on the color of their eyes... That makes about as much sense.

The reality is that very few people would ever elect for an abortion to select sex (in our country). As such this is basically a non-issue.

Further, if a woman chooses to abort based upon the sex that is her deal, in my opinion. I may find it distasteful, but it's her body.

Very few people would not live together before the 1960s either.

janellect wrote "Because getting pregnant just to abort because of gender is wrong."

I see no difference here from existing IVF procedures which allow for sex screening before implanting an embryo of the specified sex.

"I see no difference here from existing IVF procedures which allow for sex screening before implanting an embryo of the specified sex."

Maybe not from an ethical standpoint- I agree that destroying an unwanted embryo isn't any less murder than aborting that baby after it has implanted into the womb. But $400 for the test plus whatever an abortion costs is still a far cry from $10,000 for IVF with sex selection.

Vincent, you are absolutely correct... one difference is that they always have more than a few eggs, so that there are always some which are not implanted. You will have the same amount frozen rather than used, no matter which ones you use.

And they do have a program where you can elect to donate the frozen.

I will say, I am pro-choice and whatever a woman wants to do in regards to her own body, is her choice, for whatever reason, including sex-selection. However, just because I believe it's her right, doesn't mean I agree with her reasoning. I disagree with putting so much importance on and obsessing over a baby's, or anyone's, physical sex. So, what I would say to someone considering abortion because of the fetus' physical sex, is I support your right to abort for whatever reason you want, but I don't agree with your reason.

I'd like to see your statistical basis for claiming immigrants from "those countries" continue that behavior in the US.

Maybe not from an ethical standpoint- I agree that destroying an unwanted embryo isn't any less murder than aborting that baby after it has implanted into the womb. But $400 for the test plus whatever an abortion costs is still a far cry from $10,000 for IVF with sex selection.

SO you're saying that since the IVF couple paid more money that their "murder" is more valid

And actually, this brings up a thought. Why aren't pro-lifers picketing when couples have IVF? An embryo is an embryo afterall

This argument against allowing people to cheaply and privately determine the sex of their child on their own because some of them might decide to abort is foolish.

Dr. Rosser quotes “Remember, gender is not a disease.”“But it should only be used by families that are at risk for sex-linked diseases.”

As I understand it, you dont need a reason or a disease to have an abortion. You are not precluded from having an abortion by a checklist. Your husband cannot prevent you from making that choice and a doctor who thinks that only families with a "known risk" should be able to access a test is far from ethical.

Mandy wrote "Why aren't pro-lifers picketing when couples have IVF?"

There aren't as many couples ordering IVF. But the main difference is that IVF is a process, despite its very high failure rate, intends to initiate at least life while an abortion reliably terminates a life.

Vincent

But the main difference is that IVF is a process, despite its very high failure rate, intends to initiate at least life while an abortion reliably terminates a life.

So this logic actually works for this. A girl gets pregnant at 17, instead of having one child she chooses to abort, go to college, get married, and have several more children.

By aborting one fetus, she has had the opportunity to have many more children on her own terms, when she feels she is ready. And that failure to success rate is much lower than IVF :-)

All of you claiming to be pro life I am sure you have 3 or 400 kids you have adopted running around your house and would glady take another right? just go down to your local planned parenthood and offer to take care of all the bills and adopt a child after it has been born you would cut the abortion rate in half. But until you step up and put yourself on the line quit telling others what to do. Judge not lest ye be judged try not to forget that.

Doubleyew:

I don't mind what she does to her own body. If she wants to chop off a hand or a foot (her own, not the baby's) she is welcome to do so as far as I am concerned. Oh, you probably found that distasteful, even objectionable. You likely don't believe she can do what whe will with her own body. But you don't see the "fetus" as part of her body. You see it as a "legally killable" person.

Mike:

No, I take responsibility for my own actions. But how about this? Everyone who gets an abortion can adopt 10 problem children. Until then, don't tell me it's "not a decision made lightly." Yes, it is. These are people who want to have sex, but don't want to take responsibility. No, I will not give you licence to keep popping them out until the people who oppose abortion submit. I favor prevention, not "oops, got preggers, time for another abortion."

It's kind of funny that people don't have problems with abortion based on gender selection. What about killing a fetus because of its race? This has been going on in America since the legalization of abortion. The founders of 'planned parenthood' only wanted certain kinds of people being born, hence their attempts to make abortion available in poorer areas, and especially available to black women. Sanger wrote in a letter to Dr. Gamble (another planned parenthood founder) on Dec. 10. 1939,

"We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population."

What's funny is that Margaret Sanger was largely successful in her goal to exterminate the black race-today over half of Negro pregnancies end in abortion.

It is certainly bad if done on a large scale (just look at the ratio of boys to girls in China).

It's a moot point for the US, however.

Hopefully there will be a lot less abortions with birth control being free.

EqualityforAll53,

I'm not sure where you get your data to back up the "damn few" comment about how many anti-abortionists adopt. My church has about 500 families; of those, many have adopted children or served as foster parents. I can't give you exact stats as I don't even know most of the families' situations in my church. Of the 100 or so families I do know, at least 15 have adopted children.

Still, this article should have no bearing on the abortion issue. Currently, abortion is legal; knowing the gender of the unborn child/fetus/tissue doesn't change that. There is no legal difference between destroying a sex-unknown fetus or a female fetus.

Yes it is. Now, if we could only develop a test on a fetus that would tell us who will grow up to be a murderer or a rapist. Then we might see some real "engineering". Tell me ... if that occurs in the future, would you become pro-choice?

Down's syndrome children can be extremely lovable, but they do come with extra monetary and emotional costs, along with a lifetime of care. Not all parents are able to handle that. It should be a couple's choice. Additionally, preventing genetic mistakes does not constitute social engineering. These kids have part of an extra chromosome. This doesn't constitute an adaptation or normal variation.

The number is closer to 95% actually. They are a lot of work, but all children are. Most of them in today's society can contribute and become semi-autonomous.

Actually, Carmen, keeping kids alive with severe disabilities is more engineering than not. In animals, natural selection would cause those born with mutations to die young unless that mutation was a better adaptation.

Silver...No I would not. And that's from someone who 5 family members have been murdered.

In humans it's called miscarieges. Nature doesn't appartently consider down syndrome something to be eliminated.

It's apparent that the cloak of science gives women the delusion they're better than the women in historical cultures who just left unwanted babies by the side of the road to die.

For the record...Mandy...Down Syndrome isn't classified as only a "severe disability", in a few cases, yes. But certainly not the majority.

Just as in the normal population, there is a wide variation in mental abilities, behavior, and developmental progress in individuals with Down syndrome. Their level of intellectual disability may range from mild to severe, with the majority functioning in the mild to moderate range.

http://nichcy.org/disability/specific/downsyndrome

Part of the problem with the percent being so high, for down syndrome babies, is lack of education. People hear those words and cringe... So what about the woman that has the AFP test (this is the early recognition test for various defects), and it comes back looking A-ok, she goes to term, has the baby, and he/she has Down Syndrome? Would be ok to terminate then? I mean really, for those that this it's a valid reason to terminate, would this be ok? Because I have news for those of you that don't know, It happens. It happened to me. I was told the test came back looking good. No need for worry. I wasn't looking to have answers to abort, I was looking to be prepared...what they don't really explain to you, is the only test that is 99% accurate is the amniocentesis. (Most women under 35 don't have that procedure unless there are pre-existing factors) the AFP is only 60% accurate.

My son was born to me, as a surprise, with down syndrome...but honestly, I wouldn't change a thing about it. He's my boy, and absolutely perfect, just like any child in a loving parent's eyes. I haven't met one parent yet, that regrets their child being born (with down syndrome). Those of you that have never experienced it first hand, can only think of the "work" and "procedures" and "uncertain futures", last time I checked, these were the same worries of every parent. But because you have never had the experience, you honestly don't know how beautiful it can be...and because doctor's don't take the time to really go over the facts to relieve a parent faced with this possibility, they are almost always (95%) aborted.... But again would you begrudge a woman that did away with a child with down syndrome at any stage of pregnancy? Assuming she had just learned of the diagnosis at said stage? And if so why? To me, it's no different logically. If your pro-choice, can you honestly say there's a difference? And if so, that seems inconsistent and rather convenient.

I would do it.

You are ill-informed. It has cost 163 million little girls their lives.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303657404576361691165631366.html

I think the comment was for here in the states. Other countries do gender selection yes, before this test was even available.

Population control ... indirectly.

No. That's from someone who 5 family members were murdered.

"Get a life"

The ultimate debate killer and statement of anti-intellectualism.

Vincent: My stating that people should get a life, came with good suggestions, other than simply stating that "some people" should mind their own business.

On the other hand, meddling with a woman's or a couple's PRIVATE decision to choose their child's gender if it were possible, is indeed anti-intellectual and an ultimate freedom killer. How 'bout that?

My sperm is living, does that mean I'm killing millions when I masturbate?

So robert, the women who use the invasive tests and have a miscarriage because of that... do you call them murderers too?

It's a living BABY from day 1! Unless you abort it and kill it.

No, it's a fetus until it comes out. Get your terminology right and maybe you'll be taken seriously (that was a joke, you won't be taken seriously).

Its not a living baby. Like you said, its a fetus.

I have been a cytogenetic technologist for 30 years. We’re the people who do the chromosome analysis (i.e., Down syndrome) from an amniocentesis or CVS. We’re also able to do chromosome analyses from products of conception, which is material (tissue) derived from a spontaneous miscarriage or an elective abortion. What we receive in the laboratory can vary from a small piece of skin to the entire fetus--and just about anything in between that you can imagine. Parts of little mangled arms, hands, feet-- the whole nine yards—received from abortions. Yes, by definition, a “fetus”. But, I’ve often wondered if people spent a day in the lab viewing these specimens whether they might consider these little lives as sacred as yours and mine.

I suspect if your name was Roberta Hall you would have a different perspective. Men feel they have some right dictate to women. That is why the abortion laws were enacted. Before reliable birth control, many men didn't care if their wives died in child birth. My grandmother had 5 children in 7 years.

I have been a cytogenetic technologist for 30 years. We’re the people who do the chromosome analysis (i.e., Down syndrome) from an amniocentesis or CVS. We’re also able to do chromosome analyses from products of conception, which is material (tissues) derived from a spontaneous miscarriage or an elective abortion. What we receive in the laboratory can vary from a small piece of skin to the entire fetus--and just about anything in between that you can imagine. Parts of little mangled arms, hands, feet-- the whole nine yards—received from abortions. Yes, by definition, from a “fetus”. But, I’ve often wondered if people spent a day in the lab viewing these specimens whether they might consider these little lives as sacred as yours and mine.

I totally agree with you, GeneBoy.

The vast majority of abortions occur due to ignorance - i.e., people too ignorant to refrain from sex, or at least use some form of protection. It is also easier to remain ignorant as to what, exactly abortions extract from the womb - call it a fetus, or cells (but don't call it a baby) - and go home and carry on.

While I agree a woman has a right to choose, it saddens me greatly that so many choose abortion as their form of birth control.

Exactly. A gun is not inherently evil and can be used to hunt and survive, but if one person uses it for bad, should we get rid of all guns? That would fly real well in Texas.

You use whatever terminology that makes you feel good, but and embryo is a baby with a beating heart.

I don't want to tell anyone what to do, let everyone make their own decisions but for me and mine, murder is murder.

Actually, in the greater majority of cases of abortion it is not the mother who makes the choice, but the father. Either he actively encourages her to abort, or coerces her to do so or he walks out on her and their child leaving her feeling she has no choice. To be sure, if she doesn't want the abortion, she should stand up to him but--with some exceptions--almost always there is an enormous amount of pressure put on her, by both society and the man, that is not put on him. In any case, freedom of choice is usually HIS, not HERS.

What a complete load of CRAP, miss matilda!

Do you have some valid, factual information to back up your statements?

I didn't think so.