I don't like sex selection in any way. However, people focus on sex selection through abortion like it's some kind of horrific, immoral thing.

And yet, there are tons of books out there now, telling people surefire ways to select the sex of your baby "naturally". For instance, they tell you what kind of frequence of intercourse, time of the month, food to eat, etc., would be best for conceiving boys or girls. And a lot of people suck this stuff up.

So, for those who do NOT believe a fetus is a person during the first trimester, I don't see why they're so up in arms over using abortion for sex selection, when there is a huge advice industry for people to try to choose the sex of their babies "naturally".

If it's sex selection that appalls you so much, then I hope you're writing to all the bookstores in Canada that carry books like this and this and this.

Otherwise, I can't help but think it's not the sex selection that bothers you, but the abortion. And if it's the abortion that bothers you, then my advice is, get over it, because it's not going away.

This is not, by the way, to say that I approve of sex selection - but I certainly wouldn't make it illegal for people to obtain abortions due to the sex of the baby, because that just opens the door to "abortion on demand" being changed to "abortion when we think you have a good enough reason".

It sucks that abortion for sex selection is used in some parts of the world to restrict the birth of females, but if I were a woman who lived in a family where girls were so undervalued that an extreme measure like this one is used to ensure male births, then I probably would consider aborting a female fetus as well. I wouldn't WANT to raise a daughter in that kind of environment, and have the heartbreak of watching her go through life less valued than her male siblings.

But the fact is, that's not really the situation here in Canada. Here, there is no problem of disparate birth rates between girls and boys, so even if the occasional person practices sex selection (whether "naturally" or through abortion), it's not going to have any effect on the population on a macro level. And on a micro level, those who are so desperate not to have a girl that they'd go to such measures to ensure they won't have one, would be best not raising a girl anyhow. (They'd be best not raising boys either, as far as I'm concerned, but there's not much you can do about that.)

[ 22 June 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]

[ 23 June 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]

Selection of offspring already occurs with people regularily in this country aborting fetuses with Downs Syndrome because of the inconvenience of raising them. This really bugs me since the Downs Syndrome individuals I know are great people.

Maybe it is in the testing that we need to be more proactive. Testing for sex is not necesary and can rightly be seen as unethical if it is merely for the purposes of sex selection. Testing for disabilities is one that has even more problems.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farces:
I do have some concern that allowing unfettered sex selection will put us on a slippery slope to allowing selection on any basis. Maybe the woman should be allowed to abort a fetus because it is likely to be gay, but this is not clearly and obviously a good thing to me. Specifically, I think we would probably end up in a world with fewer gay people in it.

---

I don't understand. Would you prefer a woman who is bigotted and hateful enough to abort her unborn child simply because the child is gay to be forced to carry the child to term and raise her gay child? I don't see how that would benefit the child or the mother.

[ 23 June 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farces:
In other words, set the world up so that a woman can abort as often as she wants, but is not allowed to know if her prospective child has the gay marker or the liberal marker or whatever.

---

I see. And who decides what a pregnant woman should and shouldn't know about her fetus? I disagree with any answer other than the pregnant woman herself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by greenie:

I don't understand. Would you prefer a woman who is bigotted and hateful enough to abort her unborn child simply because the child is gay to be forced to carry the child to term and raise her gay child? I don't see how that would benefit the child or the mother.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by greenie:

. . . Anything less would infringe upon her rights.

---

[off topic sentence removed by poster] Until the ultrasound machine, a woman got to know nothing at all about her fetus.

These are some awfully new "rights" we are talking about here. And frankly, it wasn't the pregnant woman who invented these fancy schmancy ultrasound machines [off topic] -- it was/is society as a whole. If she wants access to society's technology, then I don't have a problem making her follow some sensible rules as a sort of quid pro quo.

One sensible rule is to make up your mind about abortion early in the pregnancy and stick with that decision unless some unforeseen and drastic circumstance arises.

[off topic paragraph removed by poster]

[ 23 June 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]

If some people get genetically engineered, then everybody NEEDS to be genetically engineered; or failing that, only those who can afford it. The average IQ may be 105 naturally, but if 50% of the population pays 15, 000$ so that their child can have an IQ of 140, you can be sure the parents of hitherto average kids will end up generally raising society's rejects. Intelligence, psychological health, physical strength and stature... all these would be financially expensive to repair. These days richer kids already have some advantages in that they're more likely to get braces, reading glasses if they need them which some poor kids can't afford, and good extracurricular activities which are expensive. If they can receive genetic engineering before birth as well then the gap between rich and poor will proceed to become absolute and permanent. The greeks may have been wrong when they thought the inferiority of slaves was natural, but people in this hypothetical future will be right.

Of course you can choose to ignore these greater issues and focus on women's reproductive rights.

[ 22 June 2006: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

humans tend to be more generous spirited and braver when they feel that all's right with the world. they also are more willing, in my opinion to make decisions that are good for the whole.

quote:

---

What rights? From the dawn of the human race until a couple of years ago a woman got to know nothing about her child's genetic markers. Until the ultrasound machine, a woman got to know nothing at all about her fetus.

---

But.

In the past, there was another choice about what to do with an unwanted/undesirable baby. That choice is generally not approved of any longer.

Edited to add: For more Canadian context, the 1991 the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies, Proceed with Care, is worth a read:

quote:

---

The three distinct techniques employed in sex selection for non-medical reasons are sperm treatment followed by assisted insemination, sex-selective zygote transfer, and prenatal detection of fetal sex to enable sex-selective abortion. Except where medically indicated (for example, in cases of diseases linked to the X chromosome), the Commission recommended that the techniques not be available for use.

---

[ 22 June 2006: Message edited by: writer ]

quote:

---

when women feel fully empowered and protected by their societies they will feel less threatened by artificial, societal 'baby standards'.
humans tend to be more generous spirited and braver when they feel that all's right with the world. they also are more willing, in my opinion to make decisions that are good for the whole.

---

I disagree with your assessment that women in general are all angels. I'm not a woman but I have a sister and a mother and a lot of female friends and to be honest I find your comment that all women are weak, powerless and as such forced not to behave like angels to be somewhat condescending.

And even if 90% of them were, it would only take 10% of women to put their baby's interests first (a natural maternal instinct if there ever was) for the floodgates to open. Life is pretty good in North America right now, especially for the wealthy, but these still feel the need to have their kids benefit from extracurricular activities, better clothes, better everything. And they're allowed and so be it. You dismiss forcing an IQ of 140 as a designer baby. lol, and if you were a parent would you not give your kids music lessons? It's the same idea, only more fluid. Somehow I doubt that if you were pregnant and 50% of kids were being enhanced, you would be satisfied with an average child who would inevitably become a serf and be unhappy. But allowing richer kids to be benefit from an enhanced genetic profile and you endorse social stratification to a degree never before seen in human history. The inevitable conclusion would be speciation between rich and poor.

But of course you hold on to quaint notions of feminism which are not suited to this issue on their own.

[ 22 June 2006: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farces:
What rights? From the dawn of the human race until a couple of years ago a woman got to know nothing about her child's genetic markers. Until the ultrasound machine, a woman got to know nothing at all about her fetus.

---

Her right to choose. Part of a woman's right to choose is the right to any information that may affect that choice. How can a woman make the right choice for herself without having all the information that is available at her disposal?

quote:

---

I'm not a woman .... But of course you hold on to quaint notions of feminism which are not suited to this issue.

---

That, even after a polite reminder.

[ 22 June 2006: Message edited by: writer ]

To summarize, feminist doctrine, or what I know of it, holds a woman's right to choose to be at the top of the altar of rights, equal to freedom of expression for example. I'm saying it's superseded by the need to prevent speciation between rich and poor, which is inevitable conclusion of mass-market genetic engineering.

Also writer, I clicked on "reply" before you posted your post, and as such saw no reminder. I also don't appreciate being quoted out of context.

Example of quoting out of context:

quote:

---

Please respect ... another choice

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by writer:
First: a gentle reminder that this is a discussion in the feminism forum of babble. Please respect its mandate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
I disagree with your assessment that women in general are all angels. I'm not a woman but I have a sister and a mother and a lot of female friends and to be honest I find your comment that all women are weak, powerless and as such forced not to behave like angels to be somewhat condescending.

But of course you hold on to quaint notions of feminism which are not suited to this issue on their own.

---

You know what? She didn't say that, and you're putting words in her mouth. And you're doing it here, in the feminism forum.

Here's another example of an uninformed smear of feminism made by you in a later post:

quote:

---

To summarize, feminist doctrine, or what I know of it, holds a woman's right to choose to be at the top of the altar of rights, equal to freedom of expression for example.

---

If you feel you can "summarize feminist doctrine" with that kind of simplistic sentence, then it's pretty clear that you need to do a lot more listening and a lot less posting.

This forum is a place for pro-feminist women and men to share their thoughts about issues that relate to feminism, and it's a place where women aren't supposed to be drowned out by male voices, especially didactic male voices.

quote:

---

Her right to choose. Part of a woman's right to choose is the right to any information that may affect that choice. How can a woman make the right choice for herself without having all the information that is available at her disposal?

---

This thread is begining to touch on genetic engineering and I think the entire notion is despicable. Please don't take my comment on of context, a woman with a reason (such as morningstars 'grateful for my abortion' thread) should not be restricted and the choice is fully theirs. But to abort based on the childs qualities are a different matter entirely.

How far are we from just starting cloning humans till we get the child you want instead of the 'out of date' reproduction system we use now?

edited to reword/grammar

[ 22 June 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

they'll just stop marrying and having children.

i think that for women to have kept going, despite global, historical violence and deprivation ,at the hands of men, is a testament to womankinds strength and adaptability

no, i really can say that the thought of women being weak hasn't ever occurred to me.

when women decide what works for them reproductively, without interference from men [who would like to continue deciding what is best for themselves, ,oops, her,] then we'll, see won't we?
when society can view everything through a female lens and make the just changes that are necessary, i suspect that everyone will be happier.

Fortunately, I think I figured out how to deal with it. My proposal:

I think they should track the number of females and males born each year. I am pretty sure that they already track this info, so this part of my proposal is nothing new.

However, if the gender balance goes too far away from 50/50 in either direction, then I think the child tax credit (or whatever it is called here in Canada) should be adjusted so that the unfavored gender gets a bigger tax credit.

For example, if 60% males and 40% females were born in a year, then the guardians of the female children would get a bigger tax credit than the guardians of the male children. The tax credit difference should be large enough to incentivize things back down toward a 50/50 balance. The larger the disparity in genders, the larger the disparity in the tax credit. In other words, 70/30 is a bigger problem than 60/40 is a bigger problem than 55/45.

In this way, if the sex selection still leaves the live births at 50/50 (like Michelle and I think it would) then there would be no change from the present system. However, if things started to change over time and the genders did start getting out of whack, I think that could be fixed by tax incentives, rather than by restrictions on abortion.

[ 22 June 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]

[Edited to add an "f".]

[ 23 June 2006: Message edited by: writer ]

if we create a just, humane society many of these issues will die a natural death. things will have a chance to normalize and women will deal with whatever comes up.

Some people might decide to abort because they want a boy and not a girl, or because they don't want a child with down syndrome or one who is gay or one with curly hair. My belief is that these people are in the very small minority. As despicable as we might find these people, to me, freedom of choice re. reproductive rights trumps the rest. Every child should be a wanted child.

Genetic engineering, on the other hand, has nothing to do with controlling your body and everything to do with controlling the baby. As far as I know, genetic engineering is still science fiction. When, and if, we are one day able to buy genes for intelligence and blue eyes and a good body etc., we may decide to prohibit this gene selection. Can someone explain to me why this means that we also need to criminalize abortion or abortion for certain reasons?

Seriously though - I don't think you were around back when the feminism forum wars were happening when this forum first opened so I get the sense that you've stumbled upon something you weren't expecting here. There was a lot of soul searching about what the purpose of this forum would be, as well as the rules and the general code of conduct.

Basically, we decided that this was going to be a place where feminist women would feel comfortable discussing feminist issues, and that, while pro-feminist men are welcome to post here too, that women would like to take the lead, and not be told how to do feminism by guys, even if they're supportive and well-meaning.

And so, I think your post mentioning father's rights might have been a red flag, and possibly also thinking out rules that women might be subject to with regard to their pregnancy. I actually wasn't really offended by anything you wrote, especially since your last substantial post was an attempt to find a way to address a potential problem with gender disparity in a way that wouldn't affect women's choice - and you did mention at the beginning of the thread that you didn't really think it was much of a concern since sex selection probably wouldn't affect the aggregate totals of both genders. But your post landing right after 500 Apples might have brought you in for a share of the frustration with a thread in the feminism forum where more men than women are weighing in on what women should be allowed to do with their bodies. This is an old, old argument on babble that you probably haven't been here for before.

So anyhow...I don't think writer was being hostile to you or even addressing you directly, and certainly bigcitygal wasn't hostile, even though she was addressing you directly. So I think it would be best if you didn't keep repeating that to them, especially in this forum.

[ 23 June 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]

If you mean (2), then please show me one instance where any poster here suggested that this form of genetic engineering is a good idea.

If you mean (1), then I still think that the woman's right to choose trumps the other considerations. People define feminism differently. To me, reproductive rights are pretty high on my list of important feminist issues. It may be lower on yours, but please don't come in here and tell me I'm antifeminist or anti healthy father-daughter relationships for defending the right to control my body for whatever reasons I may choose.

Re. the feminism is supposed to be sympathetic to gay rights issue: all equality seeking groups share many of the same values and concerns. This does not mean we all agree on everything. Point in case is the age of consent. Egale, among other groups that represent gay rights, is against raising the age. Egale has informally asked certain feminist groups to consider supporting them. To date, I don't know of any feminist group which has spoken out against the law, as there is an argument that it might benefit young girls.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farces:
1.
[b]2. Trait selection does realistically threaten to wipe out the gay community.

---

Really? Am I so far out of the loop that I missed the scientific discoveries that have (1)isolated the gay gene, (2) created a pre-natal test for its detection and (3) learned how to destroy or repress this gene in the fetus (or after for that matter)

Edited for spelling

[ 23 June 2006: Message edited by: Summer ]

quote:

---

1. Healthy child/father relationships are important for feminism and for everybody else. To the extent trait selection undermines this, it is antifeminism, not pro. I did not broadly advocate for father's rights, but the selected traits will affect the child (half of them female hopefully) much more out the womb than in it. Leveraging the right to control one's body into a unilateral right to control what children will look and be like seems unfair, especially if ethical, moral and legal duties are going to be ascribed to someone who has no real voice in selecting those traits. Systematically distancing daughters from their fathers, as I fear unilateral trait selection could, is not good for feminism.
2. Feminism is supposed to be sympathetic with gay rights. Trait selection does realistically threaten to wipe out the gay community. It bothers me, therefore, when anybody is overly glib about these choices and the way they are made. This is not a mistake any self-respecting feminist should be making because of the historic parallels between the gender equality and gay rights movements. To say that trait selection is primarily a matter of blue versus brown eyes is misleading and dangerous.

3. Having gender balance (eg, 50/50 not 60/40) is important for feminism, and for everybody else too. What is going on with abortion in India is not good for the cause of feminism.

4. To assume from my posts that I don't understand feminism or respect it would be presumptive and wrong. I think that happened on with a couple of replies on this thread and I do find it hostile.

5. To assume that I don't understand feminism because I am a male is sexist and antifeminist.

6. It is not me who needs be reconsidering her/his positions taken on this thread. I understand a lot more than some people here assume. The proper feminist thing to is to forbear from browbeating a person who is saying perfectly reasonable things born of valid concerns for humanity and society, most especially gay society.

7. I am not saying that everybody on this thread was being hostile to me, or even that everybody who disagrees with my positions was being hostile. I was on this thread because I wanted to discuss the difficult issue of trait selection and the associated issue of who decides. Discussing, to me, means taking in differing viewpoints and considering them on an ongoing basis. Even the comments I don't agree with are helpful so long as they are related to trait selection, the subject at hand. However, when people say that I need to stop thinking about trait selection and focus all my energies on thinking about spousal abuse that is disruptive and just plain not nice.

---

Keeping this dandy quote for prosperity. I see you haven't learned anything and in fact, have managed to trip over into hostility and what looks like a serious problem with women. I find this post highly offensive. I'm sure I won't be the only one.

[ 23 June 2006: Message edited by: Stargazer ]

quote:

---

4. To assume from my posts that I don't understand feminism or respect it would be presumptive and wrong. I think that happened on with a couple of replies on this thread and I do find it hostile.

5. To assume that I don't understand feminism because I am a male is sexist and antifeminist.

---

Well, no.

Farces, I think I've met you at least once, and I seem to recall you're a nice enough sort. (you come well recommended by a babbler I know better, anyway).

PS: Although I diagree with a lot of Morningstar says, I think her posts are a good example of how to disagree with my arguments without disrespecting me. Probably Summer too, but it can be hard to remember whoall said what.

[ 23 June 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]

[ 23 June 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]

Well, I guess feminism can be determined by men. No need to continue on with this one then. Thanks Farces, I can stop worrying my head up about what feminism means now..
As well, I don't care who he comes recommended by, he should not be allowed to post in this forum, which he continues to do, and continues to impose his views of us. He is clearly free to post in other threads. Yet he's back, no apologies and more baiting.

quote:

---

Originally posted by writer:
Funny, I thought the subject of this thread was sex selection, not various genetic traits selection, from a pro-feminist point of view, as it is in the feminism forum.

I thought people were free to start their own threads about new subjects in whatever forums might be most appropriate.

---

Lets move the thread to "Youth Issues" then. I would have preferred having this thread there anyway. I do think it would be intrusive to have separate threads for sex selection and selection of other traits though. The issues are not always exactly the same, but they are closely intertwined, such that dividing this thread in 2 pieces would be disruptive to the natural flow of discussion.

[ 23 June 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]

Veering off into futuristic discussions about what happens once we isolate the "gay gene" (which hasn't even been proven to exist), or about what happens when we can manipulate DNA to create super IQs, or do prenatal tests to find out eye colour or whatever is a complete diversion, and doesn't need to happen here.

Now, if you want to go to another forum (say, humanities and science) and talk about the ramifications of eugenics or cloning or future technology that will allow people to manipulate traits, then please, feel free to do so. I'll even start the thread if you'd like, because I think that would be an interesting discussion. But I would appreciate it if you didn't keep sidetracking this thread with it, especially when the women in this forum are making it clear that they consider it a diversion.

We've had a long history of arguing with well-meaning guys who get offended when women in this forum ask them to not dominate the conversation by directing it where they think it should go. I'd really rather not have a repeat of that here, especially not with someone I know and like at the centre of it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by writer:
Funny, I thought the subject of this thread was sex selection, not various genetic traits selection, from a pro-feminist point of view, as it is in the feminism forum.

---

I think Farces is arguing against sex selective abortion by using a slippery slope argument. So, if sex selective abortion is okay then why not sexual orientation abortion for example and so on. Furthermore, he argues that this acceptance could potentially "wipe out the gay community".

[ 23 June 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

Healthy child/father relationships are important for feminism and for everybody else. To the extent trait selection undermines this, it is antifeminism, not pro.

---

quote:

---

By the way, Stargazer, we're all human, and I'm sure there are people on babble that you know and like that you would give more leeway to than others when it comes to stepping over the line on babble. So I really don't appreciate your insinuation that I'm somehow giving this guy a free ride because I know him. I don't think any job is worth destroying friendships over and I'm sure you don't either, so cut me some slack here, okay? I'm doing the best I can.)

---

A: I'm extreemly uncomfortable with the idea of sex selection, because I am of the belief that where it happens, the reasons for this reflect unhealthy rather than healthy aspects of the society. There are probably other reasons which bear further introspection before I would try to articulate them.

B: I believe in a woman's unfettered right to an abortion if that's what she wants. Whatever the reason is no ones business but her own.

Again, the two countries that come to mind are India and China. If you live in a country where your fertility is restricted by the state, and your family is sexist and values boys more than girls, and you know that both you and your potential daughter will have a miserable life if you give birth to a girl, then I think that probably abortion is a reasonable choice if you learn during the first trimester that the fetus is female. Does that mean I think it's a great thing? Hell no. But I certainly wouldn't just isolate the act of aborting based on sex and focus on that as the problem. The problem is not the woman aborting the fetus. The problem is the society that forces her to have only one child, and that values boys over girls, and probably a whole lot of other systemic problems that make it so that the woman is vulnerable to the dictates of her family.

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:

A: I'm extreemly uncomfortable with the idea of sex selection, because I am of the belief that where it happens, the reasons for this reflect unhealthy rather than healthy aspects of the society. There are probably other reasons which bear further introspection before I would try to articulate them.

---

1. Do you think adoptive parents should have the right to choose the sex of their child?

2. How about the race or colour?

3. Do you think adults should have the right to choose the colour of the person they marry?

4. How about the sex?

Edited: to make my point more clearly.

[ 23 June 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]

[ 23 June 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farces:
These concerns are fully addressed in the science fiction portion of this board. Discussion is best when it remains on-topic. This thread isn't about race & marriage!

---

[ 23 June 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]

[ 23 June 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]

When we were pregnant (I say we, but I mean arborwoman) we deliberately opted against learning the gender of the kid. Not because we might delete one or the other gender, but because the first thing every person in the goddamn world asked us was the gender of the child, as if it matters even a whit at that stage.

"ooooh! Do you know what you're having?"

"A baby."

We did test for all the possible genetic complications, including Downs. We had no specific plan for what to do if the kid had one, but we wanted to know what could/would happen. I suspect if the baby had Downs we would have kept it, but there are other more severe disabilities with very short life expectancies that we might have made a different decision.

But the point is, anyone with something as body and (potentially) life changing as a pregnancy can be deserves to know everything they want to know about the fetus and the potential impacts on their life in the future. If that means that they abort a fetus with a disability, then I guess that's what it means. If that means they abort a fetus for its gender, then (as appalled as I am by the idea) I suppose that has to be accepted as well.

[ 23 June 2006: Message edited by: arborman ]

[ 23 June 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]

Sometimes one makes mistakes in a message board by misunderstanding what a poster wrote. Other times they've just had encounters with a related issue in real life which is affecting them emotionally and thus their judgment. Still other times, these posters are just wrong.

In this case, I erupted at morningstar because I exhibited dyslexia-like symptoms and read words she didn't use rather than the ones she did use. The non-words had more aggressive overtones than what she actually wrote. I don't know why but this happens to me frequently when reading. So I should apologize for that. Sorry morningstar and to the other posters on this thread for the needless drift.

quote:

---

Local workers were asked to inform him if any woman was pregnant, so that his officials could give her a cautionary call to convey that the authorities were keeping a watch.

In a few cases where a family went in for an abortion, he organised mock mournings outside their house to bring upon public humiliation on the family, so that it would set an example for others planning an abortion.

"The results are bearing fruit. Last month, an average of 944 girls were born for an average of 1000 boys in the entire district," says Kumar.

Village at the forefront of campaign to stem skewed sex ratio

---

It was me who started the infamous thread drift regarding sex selection, by linking to a story in the Western Standard. I maintain my original position that the policy that currently exists on PEI (the sex of the baby is not revealed until it is born) is a good one and does not infringe upon a woman's right to choose. A woman's right to choose shouldn't be compromised, but sex selection is abhorrent. If a girl is born into an unwelcome family that does not want a girl, or treats her poorly, perhaps she will be apprehended by the province and found a loving adoptive home.
Perhaps her mother will choose to seek resources and help in leaving her sexist partner. Personally, I think a lot of women in oppressed circumstances would welcome such a police, as I suspect it is the men in their lives pressuring or forcing them to abort females.