Linda – you state that you find the idea of abortions being done for gender selection abhorrent, but clearly you have no problems with abortions being done because the child has Down Syndrome. So in your world it is quite okay to end the life of a child if they are different to most of us, but you have some concern if the child’s life is ended simply because the child is female.

But of course for you it doesn’t really matter because you are “a supporter of women’s rights to terminate pregnancies, on demand”. Presumably that means up until birth too because as you say, how could you ever possibly interfere with what other women do with their bodies?

You really can’t have it both ways though, either the child in the womb has no value – whether healthy, different, female or whatever – and if so then there is nothing further to say, or they do have value and so they should not be allowed to be killed for any reason (including conception in rape and incest).

Then you express concern about “coercion and power imbalances in these situations”. Obviously though you have no concern about the power imbalance between the defenceless child in the womb and the adults who would end their lives.

What incredibly confused mixed messages you are sending.

I feel for the plight of the author. She has swallowed whole the the doctrine that human rights adhere to every person and that those rights over-ride all other obvious ethical demands. She is now paying the price of this in her professional life in the quandary she now finds herself in.

But this doctrine of human rights is a recent invention and has replaced all other ethical considerations. It is bankrupt as regards what our identity as human beings consists. It is obvious that our humanity deplores infanticide and this is obvious in the authors unease at abortion for gender selection. But no, she has to transcend her feelings and the obvious promptings of conscience and bow down to the idol of the day: human rights.

This is not a necessary position. It is possible to adopt an ethical position without the acceding to the mythic existence of rights. There are older and more fundamental descriptions of the human.
Peter Sellick

Linda, a well written article on a difficult subject that you won't find much support for on a forum mainly populated by men.

I agree with you that if we 'allow' abortion on demand, to a certain extent, in this country, then it is not anyone's business but the doctor and parent(s) as to the reasons for the abortion.

Deciding on whether to continue with a Down's Syndrome baby pregnancy is a very personal decision. The fallout from bringing up such a child is much worse than any guilt or remorse a woman may feel for the abortion of the child.
Any woman who does decide to keep the baby in these circumstances I have nothing but admiration for.

Gender selection abortions are a difficult subject though because of the obvious problem of coercion of women to undergo an abortion they don't want..usually of a female baby.

The one-child policy problems in China is an example of what happens if women are forced to only have one child, against their will. The result is a society top-heavy with males...leading to all sorts of social problems.

In my mind, no one has the right to force a woman to continue with an unwanted pregnancy, OR to have an abortion she does not want.

It is a woman's right to decide about what does or does not happen to her body, and it is not up to any man or culture, or religion to decide that for women.

Susan,
I find it incredible that you state:"it is a woman's right to decide about what does or does not happen to her body, and it is not up to any man or culture, or religion to decide that for women." If we are talking about rights, which is an obvious mistake, then what about the rights of the father not to have his child murdered? What about the "rights" of the grandparents, siblings, uncles and aunties etc not to have a member of the family murdered?

Rights are invented things and are used in this case to isolate the individual from his/her community. It is of the essence of being human that we exist only in communion. No man is an island unto himself.

Peter Sellick

I think my child's life has more value than Linda's - or any eugenicist doctor who dares to agree with her perverse and jaundiced viewpoint. My son might have Down's Syndrome, but at least he always lives his life by the values of love and kindness.

Sells, who said anything against the rights of the father?
I would suggest that in many cases it is the father who is urging the abortion in the first place.

No matter how much you may wish it was different, it IS the woman who is carrying the baby, using her body, and suffering the resulting physical and emotional problems.
The father is important, but it is her body, not his.

Is it always the bad woman's fault with 'sins' like sex before marriage, single motherhood or abortion?

Single mothers don't make the babies by themselves.
Maybe it's the daddies who don't want to play happy families after they have had their fun making babies?

Excalibur, no one is saying anything against your obviously much loved son, or anyone else like him.

However, not everyone is willing or able to take on a lifetime of care for these gentle people who inevitably suffer from various physical and mental illnesses.

There are many people with Downs Syndrome in care facilities that show the obvious difficulties their families had with dealing with their disabilities.
You would know that there are varying levels of how each Downs Syndrome child is affected.

I don't think we can judge these parents unless we walk in their shoes...