Sweden rules 'gender-based' abortion legal

[Guest mz.]

This is a very, very interesting case IMO. It's clear the abortions are not being used as a contraceptive tool and the abortions are not of the late variety.................

 

Sweden rules 'gender-based' abortion legal

 

Published: 12 May 09 07:27 CET

Online: http://www.thelocal.se/19392/20090512/

 

Swedish health authorities have ruled that gender-based abortion is not illegal according to current law and can not therefore be stopped, according to a report by Sveriges Television.

 

The Local reported in February that a woman from Eskilstuna in southern Sweden had twice had abortions after finding out the gender of the child.

 

The woman, who already had two daughters, requested an amniocentesis in order to allay concerns about possible chromosome abnormalities. At the same time, she also asked to know the foetus's gender.

 

Doctors at Mälaren Hospital expressed concern and asked Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen) to draw up guidelines on how to handle requests in the future in which they "feel pressured to examine the foetus’s gender" without having a medically compelling reason to do so.

 

The board has now responded that such requests and thus abortions can not be refused and that it is not possible to deny a woman an abortion up to the 18th week of pregnancy, even if the foetus's gender is the basis for the request.

 

TT/The Local (news@thelocal.se/08 656 6518)

 

via here

[Guest mz.]

Wow.......yeah this reminds me of the Chinese throwing baby girls into the dumpster because they were considered undesirable.

 

Sooooooooooooo different. These are unborn fetuses. If it came down to either aborting unwanted fetuses or abandoning/killing live kids, there is no doubt you'd vote for abortion.

 

I definitely would not make an abortion decision based upon fetal gender, but it is her choice. As lame as it might be.

 

Like vanity plates. They are not for me, but I guess some people want them. (ok a weak example...)

 

As an aside, I once broke up with a chick when I saw she had vanity plates on her car. True story.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Sooooooooooooo different. These are unborn fetuses. If it came down to either aborting unwanted fetuses or abandoning/killing live kids, there is no doubt you'd vote for abortion.

 

I definitely would not make an abortion decision based upon fetal gender, but it is her choice. As lame as it might be.

 

Like vanity plates. They are not for me, but I guess some people want them. (ok a weak example...)

 

As an aside, I once broke up with a chick when I saw she had vanity plates on her car. True story.

 

LMFAO. Wow, you really are a pussy mf.

[Guest mz.]

For the record, I do not see the aborting of a fetus as a "non-issue.". It is something I, and I hope others, would take very seriously. But to call it the same thing as a birthed baby is where we will disagree. And that's fine, because we are adults and can disagree and continue to coexist.

[budcarson]

For the record, I do not see the aborting of a fetus as a "non-issue.". It is something I, and I hope others, would take very seriously. But to call it the same thing as a birthed baby is where we will disagree. And that's fine, because we are adults and can disagree and continue to coexist.

 

not to be in your face about it, but out of actual curiosity: is birth the only clear cut event for you that places a fetus on par with a "birthed baby" ... what about the day before? What about at 39 weeks? It stinks but it's okay or is there more to it?

[Guest mz.]

Whenever the cutoff date designated by the American Medical Association is when I believe the abortion should no longer take place. I'm guessing that's when research has determined something resembling human life begins taking place.

 

And no, I am not allowing the AMA to designate what's moral and what isn't, but I'm putting faith in what their rationale is.

[Guest mz.]

Scientists/doctors, not the government.

 

The FDA and AMA are very different things.

[budcarson]

Doesn't their cutoff reflect more on stage-related viability than defining life? Some would argue that a mass of cells that have already begun differentiating themselves into independent organs (the heartbeat can be heard at under 2 months) meets your "something resembling human life" test.

[Guest mz.]

I'm sure some would argue that, yes.

 

Look , to me, abortion is like the meatpacking industry. I eat meat, but every once in awhile when I read somthing especially gross etc. about it, I consider (albeit only for a split second) becoming a vegetarian.

 

Sleeping soundly at night is underrated. There are many ills in society, no doubt, and sometimes you have to select between the lesser of two evils, as it were. I've selected legal AMA-approved abortion over neglected, unwanted babies.

[budcarson]

I'm not accusing you of rooting for more abortions but to say that abortion is the lesser of two evils, that the other available option is unwanted/neglected children is a false premise that ignores the adoption waiting lists that stretch out for years.

[Guest mz.]

ignores the adoption waiting lists that stretch out for years.

 

I'm guessing the majority of the "unwanted/neglected" kids are still with their shitty "birthparents."

 

[Guest Aloysius]

The board has now responded that such requests and thus abortions can not be refused and that it is not possible to deny a woman an abortion up to the 18th week of pregnancy, even if the foetus's gender is the basis for the request.

That's an interesting difference between European and US abortion laws. And one even many liberals would be in favor of, though the maximalists on both sides wouldn't suffer such a reasonable compromise.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Sensible compromises are next to impossible on this. Neither side wants them.

[Mr. T]

And we can ask when does life begin? what is the first living organ to develop in a fetus/baby?

 

When does the energy start in the development?

 

In my opinion its murder, but I do hold some prejudices over it. You would only know if you're wife miscarried and she had to have an abortion of a dead baby/fetus. It really bothered her, when the statement that came in the mail read abortion.

[calfoxwc]

How in the "Heck" do you compromise on a life and death issue?

 

Sounds like humanistic thinking - We don't believe in God, so

 

we get to play God and decide what babies get murdered,

 

and what babies are allowed to live.

 

blech.

 

Liberals tend to only want to compromise to get at least part of what they want.

 

When they have what they want, compromise is never going to happen.

 

and so it goes.

[choco]

well, if you, as a compassionate conservative, think that all babies should be born, then quit bitching about the welfare roles and the nanny state. most mothers nowadays are not fit to have a baby....yet, just because its alive to you, you feel you can make the decision (the right one) based on nothing more than your religious beliefs. if a soon-to-be mother recognizes that she is unfit and unable to care for the child "properly", whose decision is it regarding that life? a strangers thats politically/faith motivated, or the person whose life it affects?

 

stay outta other people's business.....in the face of overpopulation, poverty, and starvation, the nerve to think every life is sacred and must be cherished is absurd......especially considering all the kids and young adults that you gladly send overseas to die for your oil/freedom.....they at least had proven promise, how's their life worth any less?

 

i suppose you think taking god outta the pledge and christmas is a bad thing.....how's it feel to have anothers beliefs forced down your throat?

 

its so easy to advocate adoption.....ever see an adoption agency....how those kids live.....what about the ones no one wants....

 

yup....its so easy.

[Westside Steve]

Psst.

It's legal here.

Eye or hair color too.

 

WSS

[ballpeen]

Sensible compromises are next to impossible on this. Neither side wants them.

 

 

There really is no compromise to make.

 

Either you believe that human life starts at conception or you don't.

 

I think it does.

 

Just because that form is undeveloped as compared to a 1 day old child doesn't matter. The person continues to grow from conception all the way to adulthood.

 

A 1 day old child is a pretty primitive life from as compared to a 11 year old child as compared to a 50 year old person.

[calfoxwc]

well, if you, as a compassionate conservative, think that all babies should be born, then quit bitching about the welfare roles and the nanny state. most mothers nowadays are not fit to have a baby....

*************************

1. Most mothers on earth aren't fit to have a baby? Perhaps you'd like to back up that

irrational emotinal outburt with any kind of logic?

 

So, we should approve abortion because of the failures of the "great society gov. spending...

 

throwing money at the poverty and single mothers only compounded the problem with more problems.

***********************************

you feel you can make the decision (the right one) based on nothing more than your religious beliefs.

**************************************

I'm not -religious-, and if I were an atheist, I would still be horrified at the

profound callousness it involves when a tiny unborn child is murdered.

**********************************************

if a soon-to-be mother recognizes that she is unfit and unable to care for the child "properly", whose decision is it regarding that life? a strangers thats politically/faith motivated, or the person whose life it affects?

**********************************************

Gods and society's. The mother can give the baby up for adoption. There's a long list of folks wanting to adopt.

**********************************************

stay outta other people's business.....in the face of overpopulation, poverty, and starvation, the nerve to think every life is sacred and must be cherished is absurd......especially considering all the kids and young adults that you gladly send overseas to die for your oil/freedom.....they at least had proven promise, how's their life worth any less?

**********************************************

Our military folks are adults who CARE about this country, and VOLUNTEERED of their own volition, based

on their own beliefs. Unborn children are helpless, with no ability to defend themselves, or make decisions for themselves.

 

Your rant about overpopulation/poverty etc etc, is just a grotesqe rationalization that does not compute.

**********************************************

i suppose you think taking god outta the pledge and christmas is a bad thing.....how's it feel to have anothers beliefs forced down your throat?

 

*********************************

You want to force Christians to lose the pledge in a country based on Godly principles.

It was put there for a reason. Hint: It was put there before any of us were born.

Feel free to disagree, but it was put there by the Founding Fathers.

**********************************

its so easy to advocate adoption.....ever see an adoption agency....how those kids live.....what about the ones no one wants....

 

yup....its so easy.

 

*************************************

 

so killing them solves that problem? NO.

 

 

Your emotional outburts on the issue only signifies the lack of respect for

 

unborn children, and decency and humanity on the issue, not even mentioning

 

God's wishes.

 

[choco]

You want to force Christians to lose the pledge in a country based on Godly principles.

It was put there for a reason. Hint: It was put there before any of us were born.

Feel free to disagree, but it was put there by the Founding Fathers.

 

you want to force non-christians to abide by your rules.....you just simply dont get it. i dont care what principles, god or no, this country was founded on. you still haven't addressed the comment....or can't you reconcile your own hypocrisy?

 

 

Your emotional outburts on the issue only signifies the lack of respect for

 

unborn children, and decency and humanity on the issue, not even mentioning

 

God's wishes.

emotional outburst? i hand your ass to you by using your argument against you, and your only recourse is to challenge my sensibilities.

 

if i thought you could rationalize your conflicting statements, it may be worth it to continue this discussion. but since your moral superiority and indignation at someone who doesn't put the life of an unborn child over the lives of those CURRENTLY ALIVE prevent you from carrying on rationally, i'll leave it at...

 

you're the man, cal.

[Kosar_For_President]

I've asked this question many times. If your son or daughter could be cured using a procedure that was discovered via stem cell research would you accept treatment? You bet your ass you would.

[Westside Steve]

I've asked this question many times. If your son or daughter could be cured using a procedure that was discovered via stem cell research would you accept treatment? You bet your ass you would.

 

 

Well I certainly would.

Lets raise the stakes KFP.

 

To anyone.

Your wife child mother father friend will certainly die without a transplant.

A prisoner serving life without parole for murder fits the bill.

You can kill him and never be caught.

What do you do?

 

Try to remember it's hypothetical.

 

WSS

[Kosar_For_President]

Well I certainly would.

Lets raise the stakes KFP.

 

To anyone.

Your wife child mother father friend will certainly die without a transplant.

A prisoner serving life without parole for murder fits the bill.

You can kill him and never be caught.

What do you do?

 

Try to remember it's hypothetical.

 

WSS

 

That is sort of the point, anti-abortionists think this shit will never effect them. These are the same Retards who bomb an abortion clinic killing a girl going there to get birth control. No Anti-Abortionist/Stem Cell Research person has ever answered that question. I think I told this story once before when my ex and I went into a Planned Parenthood in Denver to get her birth control and people yelled at me saying "don't do it" to us. I came out 7 minutes later showing them the pills. I stood in front of them and asked them that question about their kids and treatment (mind you their kids were not being supervised and probably out having sex). No one said a word...

 

To answer your question hypothetically, yes I would. I might be contradicting myself somewhere, but when the hell don't I do that. LOL.

[Guest mz.]

Steve, you know that's not a fair question to have asked, and you're pretty fortunate to have actually gotten an answer out of KFP.

 

So how about this, Steve. Let's say your kid needs a heart transplant. The thing is, the only way he/she gets that new heart is if you rape thirty elderly nuns at gunpoint. What do you do?

 

Fun game, huh...

[Westside Steve]

Steve, you know that's not a fair question to have asked, and you're pretty fortunate to have actually gotten an answer out of KFP.

 

So how about this, Steve. Let's say your kid needs a heart transplant. The thing is, the only way he/she gets that new heart is if you rape thirty elderly nuns at gunpoint. What do you do?

 

Fun game, huh...

 

And KFP answered honestly.

He's a little harder on the anti abortion guys than I am but honest.

 

You?

As to your question; yes.

Sorry.

 

I remember Donahue and O Reilly and Phil asked the loaded question "Would you sacrifice your son for peace in Iraq?"

 

It's worded badly but easy to answer.

No I would not.

 

I would not "sacrifice" my son to keep the union intact.

Not to free the slaves if we were in Lincoln's day.

(Though I'm fully aware the war wasn't about the latter)

 

And BTW i would not "sacrifice" my daughters possible life to uphold the perp's civil rights.

 

WSS

[Guest mz.]

You?

As to your question; yes.

Sorry.

 

WSS

 

No need to be sorry. It's just one of those things, like the Global Warming argument you use ("would you stop leisure travel and using AC to help save the planet?") where one really chooses to make his life more comfortable at the expense of others. It's just human nature, but doesn't mean that person still doesn't want to save the planet, or, in this case, not rape nuns.

[Westside Steve]

No need to be sorry. It's just one of those things, like the Global Warming argument you use ("would you stop leisure travel and using AC to help save the planet?") where one really chooses to make his life more comfortable at the expense of others. It's just human nature, but doesn't mean that person still doesn't want to save the planet, or, in this case, not rape nuns.

 

 

Not at all.

In this hypothetical the answers are clear.

 

Let me ask you.

If banning leisure travel just here in the US would (not might) stop global warming I don't think we'd do it.

If raping anyone "might" help the answer changes.

Hey I'd like to lose wight. Apparently not enough to exercise and go on a diet.....

But I'm not suing Pizza Hut.

WSS

[Guest mz.]

If banning leisure travel just here in the US would (not might) stop global warming I don't think we'd do it.

 

Look, all of these things we care about (or need to care about) end up taking on some sort of personal sacrifice.

 

Am I to not enjoy my life for the betterment of future generations? Tough f-ing question...

 

[damajuki]

I really try to avoid the abortion/life discussions on here but here goes nothing.

 

Let's start with a series of questions. You don't have to answer them on the board but I hope you will consider them.

 

1. Does a healthy human fetus (a human egg fertilized by a human sperm) constitute a "human life" or does it not?

 

If you answer yes, then there are no other pertinent questions to be answered. Abortion is murder, if we define murder in the conventional way as a willful and deliberate destroying/ending of a human life.

 

There really is no reasonable argument to be made for abortion if you answer this question in the affirmative. Science cannot answer this question any better for any of us than religion or philosophy can. It is the fundamental question upon which the entire dialogue (or lack thereof) is founded.

 

We should start our discussion there as well.

 

However, if you answer question #1 "no", then please consider the following question(s):

 

2. What would you define a healthy human fetus as being, i.e., if it is not a "human life", what is it?

 

Based on your answer to #2, the following questions apply:

 

3. What responsibility does the female carrier (not technically a "mother" if the fetus is not a human life) have towards this entity, if any?

 

4. Is this entity within the carrier the property of the carrier?

 

5. Does the male contributor to the entity have any rights or responsibilities towards the entity?

 

Let's start with these basic questions, if anyone is willing to engage in the discussion on the board.

 

[Westside Steve]

A few answers.

 

1 Like it or not men have no reproductive rights today.

Just responsibilities.

Just a statement not a judgement of right or wrong.

 

2 it's human life at conception.

It's viable human life in a few months, ie a human person.

Thank medical science.

 

3 The question is this: how important is human life?

 

I say the answer is probably "not very."

 

Up to each to decide if that's good or bad.

 

 

WSS