Sex selection. We are getting more like China all the time.

There is always someone wanting to force their prejudices & ethics on every one else.

Surely this subject should be for the prospective parents only.

what's it matter if its a boy or girl. Its murder!

If you are against sex selection Debbie!? Just don't do it! As for other folks, what they choose to do with their reproductive capacity, is none of your deleted expletive business!
Alan B.

runner,

It certainly is murder; and it is even more vile that people will murder just because they don't like the sex of a child.

Something I find ridiculous is, at a time when aggressive, disgruntled women are trying to emulate men, demanding 'equality', they are wanting to wipe themselves out in the womb

Hey runner, I had a wart removed from my nose recently. Give it was human tissue and dividing XY cells. If one follows your moribund rational, I too should be charged with murder?
Alan B.

Has it not occurred to people that, in the context of legal abortion on demand, is is impossible to stop abortion for sex selection reasons. The woman concerned merely needs to claim another pretext or say nothing.

Alan B,

<<Hey runner, I had a wart removed from my nose recently. Give (sic) it was human tissue and dividing XY cells. If one follows your moribund rational (sic), I too should be charged with murder?>>

This is an irrational comparison. What was growing on your nose was not a new, live human being, as in a woman's womb.

MedicineNet states that 'a wart by another name [is] a local growth of the outer layer of the skin (the epidermis) caused by a virus. The virus of warts (a human papillomavirus) is transmitted by contact', http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=7082

From the time of conception, the medical profession has determined what is growing in the womb:

"At fertilization, the sex of the fetus is already determined, depending on whether the egg receives an X or Y chromosome from a sperm cell. If the egg receives an X chromosome, the baby will be a girl; a Y chromosome means the baby will be a boy.

"According to the Cleveland Clinic, it takes about three to four days for the fertilized egg (or embryo) to move to the lining of the uterus, where it attaches or implants to the uterine wall. Once the embryo is implanted, the cells start to grow, eventually becoming the fetus and the placenta, which is tissue that can transport oxygen, nutrients and hormones from the mother's blood to the developing fetus throughout pregnancy", http://www.livescience.com/44899-stages-of-pregnancy.html

That is not what happened with your wart.

A new human life begins in a woman's womb at the time of conception. Your wart is gone and dead and it wasn't a new live human being but a skin disease!!

OzSpen, you got one thing right, "in a woman's womb". That's not your womb, or any one else's womb, but one womans womb.

I don't know where you think you got the right to control any one else's womb, or any other part of their body, but you don't have that right. You never will have that right, so why don't you go mind your own damn business.

You people who think you are superior are nothing but sick dictatorial pains.

When is a human being separate from the mother, at what stage is it still a foetus?

Hasbeen,

<<OzSpen, you got one thing right, "in a woman's womb". That's not your womb, or any one else's womb, but one womans womb.>>

I agree. However, you miss a CRITICAL issue. I'm not talking about one woman's body but the human life of two people. One of those is slaughtered in every abortion. That human life is too often ignored in this discussion.

<<I don't know where you think you got the right to control any one else's womb, or any other part of their body, but you don't have that right. >>

Nowhere in my post did I suggest I had the right to control a woman's body. Why did you use a red herring fallacy here. Please learn to deal with the content of what I write.

Only 3 days ago Sky News reported: 'The man who allegedly stabbed a woman in Sydney’s CBD is in custody following a dramatic citizen's arrest’.

I congratulate those who risked it here, http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/watch-the-dramatic-moment-alleged-cbd-stabber-is-arrested-with-a-milk-crate/ar-AAFJFD4

<<You never will have that right, so why don't you go mind your own damn business>>

I do have a right to make it my business. I live in a country where free speech is allowed. As long as I have a voice to speak and fingers to type, I will oppose the killing of innocent unborn children.

<<You people who think you are superior are nothing but sick dictatorial pains.>>

At no point in my post did I exhibit anything that indicated I was superior to any other. You’ve invented that.

If you consider that I am a person with <<sick dictatorial pains>>, you err. If you were a German Jew, gypsy or member of a minority group in World War 2, I'd be like a Dietrich Bonhoeffer, pastor and theologian, who was an anti-Nazi dissident.

He wrote: 'Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act'.

For me not to speak about the evil killings in abortion clinics is to speak loudly.

those pollies rejoicing and congratulating themselves show how sick society is. They reminded me of Isis rejoicing over terrorist attacks. No different really despite the denials of biology on this thread.

Is Mise,

<<When is a human being separate from the mother, at what stage is it still a foetus?>>

Answering this question is a key to when human life begins. What is the scientific evidence?

The American College of Pediatricians wrote an article to address this topic. Its abstract (summary) states:

“The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins” (When human life begins, http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/life-issues/when-human-life-begins).

Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah School of Medicine, Maureen L Condic, reached a similar conclusion: 'When does human life begin? A scientific perspective, http://bdfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/wi_whitepaper_life_print.pdf.

"If the embryo comes into existence at sperm-egg fusion, a human organism is fully present from the beginning, controlling and directing all of the develop-mental events that occur throughout life. This view of the embryo is objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other, and it is consistent with the factual evidence. It is entirely independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos. Indeed, this definition does not directly address the central ethical questions surrounding the embryo:

"What value ought society to place on human life at the earliest stages of development? Does the human embryo possess the same right to life as do human beings at later developmental stages? A neutral examination of the factual evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well defined “moment of conception,” a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the zygote stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species—human beings".

OzSpen,

If I may throw in a comment with a different spin.
In response to "When does human life begin"?
I propose that "human life", means a "living human being".
Now even though it may be the same living organism that was once inside a womb and later is born, it is not necessarily a "human being", until it takes it's first breath.
Think about it, it does not follow the old saying that "if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck".
If that baby exited the womb, (wont say born for the purpose of this example) and it, for some reason does not breath air but finds it is capable of remaining in a liquid environment (such as water), similar to the womb, and it survives and prospers, (grows) is it in fact human?
It looks like a human but does not comply with ALL the specifications and requirements as laid down or set out by nature to be a "human being".
The answer is obviously, NO!
Humans are not designed to live in a liquid environment.
Unlike fish who can extract oxygen from water to survive, humans must do it from air.
So whatever this life form is, it is not "Human".
And if we say it is, then do we say it is a mutation, a faulty human, like queers and and midgets and any other life form that does not conform to the well established specifications and construct as has been the norm for the creation of "homo-sapiens", as we have reckognised as being such, and guided by historical reference of what a human being is and always has been and always will be.

ALTRAV,

"Now even though it may be the same living organism that was once inside a womb and later is born, it is not necessarily a "human being", until it takes it's first breath"

If it takes its first breath before the umbilical cord is severed is it still part of the mother?

Issy,

well, NO.
Because, (if I may use an engine as example) once the engine is started, via "jumper leads", let's call the umbilical, the jumper leads, the engine is running by itself.
So once the baby takes it's first breath, it is then and only then, "born".
It's not difficult to work out, because if the baby does not start breathing, and if no medical intervention, it is dead, or "still born".
By definition it is not a human being, because it does not fulfill the specifications of what a human being is.
Alive and breathing, for starters.
As it turns out Issy, nature answered your question for me.
The placenta automatically comes away once the child exits the womb, whether it is alive or not, it is a biological process implanted in the womans DNA and is just another automatic function that is set off by predetermined "triggers".
What happens to the baby if the umbilical cord is not cut away from the baby, I cannot say, but as long as it starts to breathe, it is now born.
I'm not sure but like other animals, I imagine the umbilical just shrivels up and die's off and eventually just falls away just like dead skin would.

ALTRAV: Yous say: "It looks like a human but does not comply with ALL the specifications and requirements as laid down or set out by nature to be a "human being"."

What I want to know is where exactly are these "specifications and requirements"? Can you show me a book/manual or maybe give me a web link that **NATURE** has produced with the details.

Additionally, there are a class of chemicals called perfluorochemicals in which it is theoretically possible to survive by "breathing" them even though they are a liquid. (eg: there is a picture in one of my old chemistry textbooks with a rat completely submersed in a solution of these- and it is doing fine. It survives by exacting dissolved oxygen even though its lungs are totally saturated with liquid). So the question I have for you is: if someone decides to lie immersed in a bath of this stuff are they now dead because they are not breathing air? Can I legally shot them and not be charged with manslaughter/murder because they are already dead?

Lastly, if I hold my breath, am I not living during this time? Do I die each time I'm deliberately not breathing then resurrect when I inhale?

I agree with Hasbeen! A wart or indeed a cancerous tumour is dividing cells supported by the host's blood flow. Ditto an embryo!

And just like the dividing cells of a fetus has no heartbeat to still! In order for something to qualify as murder, there has to be a heartbeat to still.

People choose to abort for numerous reasons, sometimes the baby's tissue and that of the mother reject the other and pose a significant danger to the living human parent and the, without a heartbeat to still, fetus.

Other times the incubator does not become pregnant with her informed consent as in rape or incest! And no fair-minded person on the planet is going to insist she carry to full term! But particularly in the case of incest where one, the child that is produced could be a gibbering idiot, the consequence of inbreeding, Or two, the mother is still a child whose life could be easily forfeit and that of the child if allowed to go full term.

Then here is the possibility of sex selection, not practised here just based on the provocative assumption without proof of the mischievious vexatious sh!te stirring author. Usually, because the parents as in China are not permitted to have more than one child, and that child is expected to support those parents in their dotage!

Similarly, in other countries, there is no age pension as such and the family is traditionally the support system for the parents and each other!

And if boys are more employable and or better paid, then the prospective parents are not given a real choice, neither are those let down by failed contraception!

Or the calloused indifference of those who continuously critique, but never ever put their hand in their pockets to assist raising the economically unaffordable child. We have just transitioned though the 7 billion number and soon to reach 9 billion!

If we were to successfully outlaw abortion, we'd transition through 20 billion. Look what 7 billion of us have already done to the planet and her finite resources, Dumbo!
Alan B.

ALTRAV,

<<If I may throw in a comment with a different spin. In response to "When does human life begin"? I propose that "human life", means a "living human being". Now even though it may be the same living organism that was once inside a womb and later is born, it is not necessarily a "human being", until it takes it's first breath.>>

Medical researchers disagree.

The world-renowned French geneticist, Dr Jerome Lejeune, discovered Trisomy 21, the cause of Down Syndrome. His medical research led to this conclusion: 'To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a matter of metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence', http://lejeunefoundation.org/jerome-lejeune-advances-pro-life-cause/.

This text on embryology explained when human life begins: "Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).

"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being" [Keith L Moore 1988. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, p.2]

The University of New South Wales course on embryology for 2019 states that 'fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being', http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php/Week_1

The medical fraternity confirms that fertilisation (conception) is the time when a human being begins.

thinkabit,

sure, no problem.
There are approx 7 Billion examples of humans possessing the appropriate specifications which qualify them as typical humans, including the exceptions.
To further confirm my point, one has only to ask the medical profession as to the function of nature and the specifications of a "human being".
I am well aware of the example you gave regarding "breathing" under water.
This is part of what is "not normal" to the human race.
So this entity, even though it would look like a human being, it is however, something else.
I have already explained the distinction.
As for holding ones breath, I assume that comment was in jest.

OzSpen,

sorry to be pedantic, but I do not disagree with the scientists.
Having said that, you will find that my explanation/interpretation of a "human being", still stands.
The scientists say Human life "begins" at fertilization.
I agree.
What it means is that the "process" of producing a human being just began.
You see it is not a "human" till it is born AND breathing.
Just exiting the mothers body, only constitutes, exiting the mothers body.
This "thing" that has just come out of this woman MUST start breathing before it can be classified as human.
So if the dreamers want to call conception a living thing they should choose some other words to describe the state of this thing as it progresses through it's nine months of forming into a human like form.
In the form of what is known as a "baby".

Alan B,

<<If we were to successfully outlaw abortion, we'd transition through 20 billion. Look what 7 billion of us have already done to the planet and her finite resources, Dumbo!>>

With your support for the genocide of the unborn through abortion, what prohibits you from extending your ethics/philosophy to other forms of genocide such as that perpetrated by Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and ISIS?

I find your recommendation of killing the vulnerable unborn to be a despicable philosophy of slaughter.

<<Or the calloused indifference of those who continuously critique, but never ever put their hand in their pockets to assist raising the economically unaffordable child.>>

That's your stab in the dark. How would you ever know how many people in Australia support the economically deprived?

Philanthropy Australia provided these statistics:

'It's estimated that 14.9 million Australian adults (80.8% of the population) gave $12.5 billion to charities and not-for-profits organisations in 2015-16. The average donation was $764.08 and the median donation was $200. Compared with 10 years ago, a smaller proportion of Australians are giving, but they are giving larger amounts', http://www.philanthropy.org.au/tools-resources/fast-facts-and-stats/

Giving $12.5 billion to charities in a year is a mighty big amount for this small population.

ALTRAV,

<<Having said that, you will find that my explanation/interpretation of a "human being", still stands. The scientists say Human life "begins" at fertilization. I agree.
What it means is that the "process" of producing a human being just began. You see it is not a "human" till it is born AND breathing.>>

That's your world view speaking. You didn't take any notice of the medical, scientific evidence I gave you at: Posted by OzSpen, Saturday, 17 August 2019 11:06:38 AM.

This evidence included:

+ 'To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a NEW HUMAN has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion' (geneticist Dr Jerome Lejeune);

+ 'This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a HUMAN BEING' (Keith Moore, Essentials of Embryology);

+ 'This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a HUMAN BEING' (UNSW course on embryology).

<<You see it is not a "human" till it is born AND breathing.... This "thing" that has just come out of this woman MUST start breathing before it can be classified as human.>>

According to the medical evidence, they are false statements. I agree that there is human development after birth of the infant but that growth of a human being (scientifically speaking) starts at conception. The human heart starts beating 4-6 weeks after fertilisation. It is not the heart beat of an 'it'.

<<So if the dreamers want to call conception a living thing they should choose some other words....>>

Resorting to this ad hominem (abusive) logically fallacy sends the argument into personal abuse ('the dreamers') instead of dealing with the issues relating to the murdering of the unborn child in the mother's womb. In Australia, we have the genocide of about 70,000 per year.

Worldwide it is estimated that there will be about 26 million abortions this year: https://www.worldometers.info/abortions/. That puts Hitler's genocide in perspective!

I would expect Lesbians are disposing of male fetuses.

Altrav,

Then, you'd think it OK to stab the baby with a knitting needle before it can breathe?

That would be abortion and not murder?

If anyone thinks abortion is ok, why would they have a problem with selective abortions based on sex of the baby? If it's wrong to kill based on the sex of the child, doesn't that imply there's something more there to protect and there's something wrong with abortion as a whole?

Abortion has its place in society; I'm particularly in favour of retrospective abortion.

ISSY,

WOW, steady on mate.
I would not agree to, or consider stabbing anything or anyone with a knitting needle or any other object, so if you don't mind, I'll respectfully refrain from engaging in such thoughts, language or activity.
If, on the other hand you were to ask if I would consider the termination of an unborn baby, the short answer is NO.
If you ask would I terminate a pregnancy of say something at or near inception, I would say yes.
I do not consider a chemical reaction to have feelings, or feel anything for that matter.
It will be some months before IT can be considered a "baby".
As was pointed out, the human "began" as a chemical reaction between a sperm and an egg.
BEGAN, not IS.
Your suggestion of using anything, let alone a knitting needle, to kill a new born baby is very distasteful, and I hope you were only trying to make your point more poignant by using such a cruel example.
I know nothing about abortion, but I would sincerely hope that it would be conducted in a most humane and sensitive manner.
I abhor those who have abortions for the wrong reasons, of which there are many, but I do understand there are circumstances whereby abortions are the only choice.
As far as sex selection goes, I think it is a foolish folly to play God.
Many years ago I wondered what could happen if the Chinese male population realised there were not enough women to go round, would these same men begin migrating to other countries with the specific intent to find a wife, and how would they do it, passively? or aggressively?
Just a thought.

Use your heads !
Nature arranged for slightly over half babies are male.
Less a small number of men killed in hunting or protecting the tribe
there is one man for every woman.
That ratio is not accidental, and it is done for the protection of children.
It is still very relevant in this day and age, perhaps even more so.

Bazz

Why?

Dan

Is Mise

Yes but, by the time you eliminate all the idiots from the mix, that'll be the whole of humanity.

The method of your retrospective abortion extermination proposal, will be the nuclear bomb.

Dan

ALTRAV,

"Your suggestion of using anything, let alone a knitting needle, to kill a new born baby is very distasteful, and I hope you were only trying to make your point more poignant by using such a cruel example".

You said that it was not a human [a newborn baby] until it took its first breath.
so killing it before it takes that breath should be OK by you.

I mentioned knitting needles because they are the weapon of choice for stabbing the unborn in the head before the head emerges, technically it's not murder or an otherwise notifiable killing so is not reportable.

ISSY,

I don't know whether to thank you for that egregious piece of information.
I must move in different circles, or maybe I avoid the nasties of life.
I know abortions go on, both sanctioned and unsanctioned, just like many other controversial activities which have both for and against followers such as the Muslim ritual of removing a young girls vaginal pleasuring medium so as to stop her from "straying" or removing the risk of her "sleeping around", before or even after marriage.
I know of many "bad" activities in life, I just don't need to know the details, such as your mention of sewing needles and how it is used in this cruel manner.
The fact that IT is about to be born and IT has not taken IT's first breath, does not negate the fact that IT might actually "feel" something like having a knitting needle rammed through the top of IT's skull.
That is a disgusting act, if only from a humane point.
So in the context of my submission, you can still end this (yet to become human), future life form, but I do not condone doing it cruelly, such as you describe.

I'm not sure if sex selection abortion occurs
in Australia. I imagine that it probably does.

At the root of the controversy regarding abortion is
a basic value judgement about the human status of the
fetus. If the fetus is considered a baby, then abortion
is a form of killing. If it is considered a mere
collection of cells and tissue, then abortion is a
morally neutral surgical procedure.

The status of the fetus is inherently ambiguous:
it is neither self-evidently a human being nor
self-evidently just tissue (for if these matters
were self-evident, there would be little disagreement
about abortion).

On the one hand, the fetus is not a human being in the
usual sense, for it is generally not viable. Indeed, no
society treats the fetus as human, for example, if the
mother accidentally miscarries, the fetus is not given a
funeral, but it is simply disposed of like any other
tissue.

On the other hand, the fetus is not like just any other
tissue, such as discarded nail or hair clippings.
The fetus is potentially a human being, one that might
become as alive and unique as you and me.

The conflicting value judgements about abortion stem
from this fundamental ambiguity in the status of the
fetus.

The question is further compounded by a related issue,
the right of a woman to control her own body. Then
there are also the rights of the father involved, and
the list goes on.

There's also other abortion-related issues that go beyond
the immediate concerns of the parents, and the child. Some
see abortion as the thin end of a wedge leading to
éuthanasia, or the "mercy killing"of defective new-borns,
wrong sex babies, and infirm old people.

Opinion polls show public confusion on the issue of
abortion. Many people support abortion in cases of rape,
incest, or a threat to the mother's health. But support
for a mother's right in abortion fluctuates.

The rate of abortion in the Western world is
high due to decisions being made primarily in terms of
people's individual personal desires rather
than of traditional norms.

cont'd ...

I should make it clear that I personally could never
have an abortion. But that's just me. I would never
dream of judging someone else's decision. I imagine
it would be one of the most difficult decisions that
anyone has to make.

ALTRAV,

"I don't know whether to thank you for that egregious piece of information.
I must move in different circles, or maybe I avoid the nasties of life."

You're obviously not married to a Health Professional.

"...The fact that IT is about to be born and IT has not taken IT's first breath, does not negate the fact that IT might actually "feel" something like having a knitting needle rammed through the top of IT's skull.
That is a disgusting act, if only from a humane point.
So in the context of my submission, you can still end this (yet to become human), future life form, but I do not condone doing it cruelly, such as you describe."

Once it is outside, but as yet unbreathing, it's OK to kill it, if it is done humanely: is that your position?

Foxy,

if you find it is "the most difficult decision you ever have to make", you obviously have not given it enough thought, because such a decision will usually be made for you because of your particular circumstance.
I don't think there is too much leeway to be in a position to make a decision.
Some examples have already been cited;
Incest.
Rape.
Are just two that do not require thought or decisions.
What I think you mean is, the need for YOU, (the pregnant woman) to come to terms with the decision.
There are too many variables to arrive at a definitive answer.
The hardest decision of all, in my opinion, is when the mother is either terminally ill or has suffered some form of life threatening incident, (physical trauma) and there is no chance of survival, then the hard decision is saving the baby over the mother.
It's really not a decision anyone has to, or can make, it's a given.

ISSY,

if you allow IT to go full term and most of all allow it to be born, breathing or not, it's too late.
IT is now born and the fact that you do not allow, or assist IT to breathe, is now a matter of law.
You might get charged with manslaughter or murder.
If you are a medical professional, you are duty bound to proceed with the proto-col of birthing and doing everything in your power and at your disposal to ensure that IT get's every chance at life, and the first step and your first responsibility is to "kick-start" IT, into life, and ensuring it starts breathing, usually confirmed by the loud shrieks and crying of the now, Human Being, baby, oh and the mother.

Many women feel that a decision about abortion should
be a strictly personal one, and they deeply resent other
people insisting that they should bear a child they do not
want to have.

But there too there are ambiguities. Half the genes in
the fetus were contributed by the father, and
although the woman must bear the child, society may make the
father responsible for the child's support for nearly
two decades thereafter. If the father waives his
responsibilities - for example, by deserting the mother -
then of course he has no further rights in the matter.

But if he accepts his responsibilities and wants the child
born what are his rights in relation to the mother's right
to control her body.

And for those who believe that the fetus is human, there is
a third party present, the mother is not only controlling her
own body, but somebody else's potential body and life.

There are so many issues involved here that can be
discussed. However, I shall leave it here for now.

Makes one wonder how they ever managed pregnancies & births years ago without all that complexity they focus on now what is essentially a natural phenomenon !

Ah well they say there were 80,000 abortions a year,
That is 80,000 Australians we do not have and we could have cut 80.000
from our immigration intake.
What a waste !

An unwanted pregnancy presents a woman with two awful alternatives either to abort her child or carry a child to term without a father and most likely face ecomomic hardship and loneliness.

The two glib comments that should be avoided are:
1- That a pregnancy is an inconvenience and that a child can be put up for adoption, as this almost never happens, and
2- That an early foetus is only a clump of cells and is not a "human", as this discounts the emotional effect on the mother.

The whole debate about abortion is full of landmines and emotion, however, it boils down to the conflict between the rights of the unborn child over the rights of the woman over the control of her body and her life. My view is that one can no more force a man to marry a pregnant woman than force her to carry a child.

As for sex selection, legislation against this is futile as one is dependent on the woman revealing this.

ALTRAV,

"if you allow IT to go full term and most of all allow it to be born, breathing or not, it's too late"

You're the one who said it was not a human till it breathes.

I merely wondered if you thought that it was OK to kill it in the small window of opportunity that you'd have before the first breath.

Issy,

read my posting again, the answer is within.

ALTRAV,

You said that it was not a human being until it breathed, so one assumes that you believe that abortion is possible until, in your opinion, it is a human.

Or are you saying that humanity starts when it is born, that is when it is outside the mother's body?

You can't have it both ways.

ISSY,

I'm not having it 'both ways'.
If you read my previous response it clearly states that once you have allowed IT to exit the mother, breathing or not, the medical staff, mid-wife, doctor are duty bound by proto-col, and law, to do everything in their power to ensure IT starts breathing.
To do otherwise will be akin to manslaughter or murder.
If they try and IT does not respond, then IT, (what we now call a baby, only because it looks like a baby, and if was breathing, would be a BABY) is 'stillborn', or dead.
So because of this IT never lived or 'came alive', to become a BABY.
I hope this clarifies.

ALTRAV,

I wasn't asking what the legal or medical opinion was but what you thought, is it still abortion before the first breath?

ISSY,

I truly want to answer you, but I am having trouble understanding the question.
"so killing IT before IT takes IT's first breath, should be OK by you".

Yes, if IT is still within the mother then I imagine if you intervened and destroyed IT within, then that would be, by todays standards, 'abortion'.
By my standards it would still be called 'abortion', but because IT is not 'alive' then it's OK.

BUT, once IT has exited the mother and is not yet breathing, then,
NO, it's not alright to kill IT, it's too late, you should have done it before IT was born.
You cannot ask such a question and dismiss the law, or it's legal implications, or YOUR legal obligations, for that matter.

Am I getting you right, or have I missed your point?

ALTRAV,

You've missed the point,
you say that it is not human until it takes its first breath, so would you still consider it abortion to kill it after it is fully out of the mother but has not yet breathed?

Simple question.

renaming unborn 'its' is the exact tactics the nazis used in renaming Jews as non human. It defies logic, biology and is an atrocious excuse for genocide. Instead of just admitting that you think its a woman's right to kill her baby such dishonest irrational is used to justify this cowardly actions.

ISSY,

it might be simple to you but, I'll try and word it another way.
I'll begin with YES, it is abortion.
Just because IT was killed after it exited the mother only adds a legal dimension to it.
It's still abortion, only the process of killing this unborn was undertaken from outside the mother, when normally it occurs whilst still growing inside the mother.
I say it's an abortion based on MY understanding of what "abortion" means.
But ISSY, you cannot dismiss the fact that once IT is 'out', and then killed, is a very controversial topic or act even.
This situation you describe, opens a whole other can of distasteful worms.
Abortion is bad enough as it is, introducing such a scenario as you have described, I doubt will be seen as worthy of any discussion or consideration.
I feel your question is one that requires it's own article.
An interesting hypothesis, never the less.

ALTRAV,

Forget the legal aspects, so you do consider it to be abortion until the child breathes; what if it breathes spontaneously once its chest cavity has emerged but it's still partly in the mother's body (it does happen)?

As far as I'm concerned life begins at conception and the foetus has the right to life.
If society decides that that life be terminated and the right overturned before it is born then fair enough, be it for health reasons, convenience or sex selection.
Some American Indian tribes allowed the mother to kill the child up to three moons after birth, which seems a logical extension.

What gets my goat is the use of euphemisms for the killing; 'kill' is much better, as a word it gives a precise meaning to the act and saves space, ink and paper.

I just read an article that mentions a girl's right to life so I take back the observation on sex selection above, a girl has as much right to life as a boy; what do the feminists think?

ISSY,

I don't know what you're trying to get me to say.
I agree with you, that no matter at what stage you "kill IT" , whether it's a fetus, or during birth, or after IT's out.
At any stage IT is "killed", fetus or later, it is still being "killed".
In the beginning it is a collection of cells.
At the end IT becomes a baby.
So yes at any time throughout the process you will be "killing" something or someone.
Are you finally satisfied, sorry I just could not get the jist of your question.
Be careful though, as much you dismiss the legal aspect, at some point in time it will be illegal to do what is being described as it will be under the jurisdiction of the law.
Especially if you promote the use of the word "kill", that might just be why they prefer to use the word, "abortion", it makes them feel better, rather than being "murderers".