Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Sweden rules 'gender-based' abortion legal

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.

http://www.thelocal.se/19392.html

I generally am pro-choice, with the assumption that the reason the woman wants to abort is because she doesn't want ANY baby.

But when you get into gender-selection abortions, I get very uncomfortable.

Yeah........that ain't cool Sweden.

dbackjon wrote:I generally am pro-choice, with the assumption that the reason the woman wants to abort is because she doesn't want ANY baby.

But when you get into gender-selection abortions, I get very uncomfortable.

So you're cool if she walked in and said, "I don't want a baby" but not cool because she said "I don't want a girl"?

wideright82 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:I generally am pro-choice, with the assumption that the reason the woman wants to abort is because she doesn't want ANY baby.

But when you get into gender-selection abortions, I get very uncomfortable.

So you're cool if she walked in and said, "I don't want a baby" but not cool because she said "I don't want a girl"?

I am uneasy with abortion, but to me, this goes beyond an unplanned pregnancy. She is saying - I want another baby, just not a girl...

dbackjon wrote:

wideright82 wrote:

So you're cool if she walked in and said, "I don't want a baby" but not cool because she said "I don't want a girl"?

I am uneasy with abortion, but to me, this goes beyond an unplanned pregnancy. She is saying - I want another baby, just not a girl...

I can't handle another abortion thread, so I'll just say, "oh".

I agree. The Chinese have done this for years. It gets close to eugenics. The whole "designer baby" thing also leaves me cold.

Ivytalk wrote:I agree. The Chinese have done this for years. It gets close to eugenics. The whole "designer baby" thing also leaves me cold.

They just toss the unwanted girlys off a bridge in a gunny sack, puppy and kitty style.

And the pro-death folks said "it won't happen here"...

Pretty slippery slope we're on...and it's almost too late to get off...

What's the difference between this and parents aborting based on genetic predisposition? Parents already do this in our own country and it's legal. Knowing what I know about the progression of science, some time in the future parents could potentially design a baby just as easy as it would be to pick out a car... yeah, I'd like a boy and we would like him to have blue eyes, dark brown hair, come out quoting Shakespeare, run a sub 10 second 100yrd dash as well as a sub 4 minute mile and oh yeah... make sure he's not predisposed to suffer from asthma, allergies, or any other genetic variation... Including the Gay gene.... Yes, scientist have proposed there is a gene responsible for same sex attraction (in the drosophila fly)... but you could start a whole thread about that. The point is, which the article subtly mentions, is that genes don't necessarily lead to a phenotypical trait that is displayed yet if a gene is found in humans and testing becomes available, you can bet some back woods folks will get their future son or daughter prenatal testing to make sure they don't come out fond of Harry or Sally. Where do you draw the line? I can understand in the case of a child who will be severely disabled, but when it comes down to designer babies... when does it become too much when you know that genetic predisposition could be dependent on a plethora of other factors that have nothing to do with genetics? In case anyone is calling bullshit on my genetics argument, just check out all the complaints on cloning pets... you send them sparky to clone and you get back sparky v2.0. Sparky had a black spot over his left eye you really liked, sparky v2.0 is brown... all over.

The study, led by David Featherstone, is published in the journal Nature Neuroscience.

The GB gene is involved in the function of glial cells, a type of brain cell that supports the active nerve cells. When the gene was inactivated, the strength of the synapses between nerve cells was affected, and the scientists noted that male flies began courting other males. “The GB mutant males treated other males the same way normal males would treat a female,” Dr Featherstone said. “They even attempted copulation.”

Drugs and genetic engineering were then used to manipulate synapse strength independently of the GB gene, with similar results. “I never thought we’d be able to do that sort of thing, because sexual orientation is supposed to be hard-wired,” he said. “This fundamentally changes how we think about this behaviour.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 025835.ece

Saw this in my search for the article, those hate filled bigots are already out there protesting.

JMU DJ wrote:What's the difference between this and parents aborting based on genetic predisposition? Parents already do this in our own country and it's legal. Knowing what I know about the progression of science, some time in the future parents could potentially design a baby just as easy as it would be to pick out a car... yeah, I'd like a boy and we would like him to have blue eyes, dark brown hair, come out quoting Shakespeare, run a sub 10 second 100yrd dash as well as a sub 4 minute mile and oh yeah... make sure he's not predisposed to suffer from asthma, allergies, or any other genetic variation... Including the Gay gene.... Yes, scientist have proposed there is a gene responsible for same sex attraction (in the drosophila fly)... but you could start a whole thread about that. The point is, which the article subtly mentions, is that genes don't necessarily lead to a phenotypical trait that is displayed yet if a gene is found in humans and testing becomes available, you can bet some back woods folks will get their future son or daughter prenatal testing to make sure they don't come out fond of Harry or Sally. Where do you draw the line? I can understand in the case of a child who will be severely disabled, but when it comes down to designer babies... when does it become too much when you know that genetic predisposition could be dependent on a plethora of other factors that have nothing to do with genetics? In case anyone is calling bullshit on my genetics argument, just check out all the complaints on cloning pets... you send them sparky to clone and you get back sparky v2.0. Sparky had a black spot over his left eye you really liked, sparky v2.0 is brown... all over.

The study, led by David Featherstone, is published in the journal Nature Neuroscience.

The GB gene is involved in the function of glial cells, a type of brain cell that supports the active nerve cells. When the gene was inactivated, the strength of the synapses between nerve cells was affected, and the scientists noted that male flies began courting other males. “The GB mutant males treated other males the same way normal males would treat a female,” Dr Featherstone said. “They even attempted copulation.”

Drugs and genetic engineering were then used to manipulate synapse strength independently of the GB gene, with similar results. “I never thought we’d be able to do that sort of thing, because sexual orientation is supposed to be hard-wired,” he said. “This fundamentally changes how we think about this behaviour.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 025835.ece

Saw this in my search for the article, those hate filled bigots are already out there protesting.

The specific gene may not be predisposed to a phenotypical specification, but wouldn't some altering of the alleles attached to the gene allow that?

One thing that is for sure, bend her over doggie style, and bury the bone to the hilt before shooting the goo, and a male child is virtually assured.

DISCLAIMER: YOU MUST BE ENDOWED WITH AT LEAST EIGHT INCHES, OR THE ABOVE DOES NOT APPLY.

wideright82 wrote:
The specific gene may not be predisposed to a phenotypical specification, but wouldn't some altering of the alleles attached to the gene allow that?

I assume by alleles you mean the gene pair? Humans contain two copies of every gene (alleles), one from each parent. Depending on whether one is dominate can lead to phenotype. When it comes to physical manifestations or behavior, scientist tend to believe a lot is do to nature. This fly study contradicts the notion that behavior isn't hardwired into us by showing they can genetically control these fly sexual behavior.

JMU DJ wrote:

wideright82 wrote:
The specific gene may not be predisposed to a phenotypical specification, but wouldn't some altering of the alleles attached to the gene allow that?

I assume by alleles you mean the gene pair? Humans contain two copies of every gene (alleles), one from each parent. Depending on whether one is dominate can lead to phenotype. When it comes to physical manifestations or behavior, scientist tend to believe a lot is do to nature. This fly study contradicts the notion that behavior isn't hardwired into us by showing they can genetically control these fly sexual behavior.

Yeah, I don't remember much from AP Bio . Genes blow my mind, you create any three eyed mice yet DJ or what?

wideright82 wrote:

JMU DJ wrote:

I assume by alleles you mean the gene pair? Humans contain two copies of every gene (alleles), one from each parent. Depending on whether one is dominate can lead to phenotype. When it comes to physical manifestations or behavior, scientist tend to believe a lot is do to nature. This fly study contradicts the notion that behavior isn't hardwired into us by showing they can genetically control these fly sexual behavior.

Yeah, I don't remember much from AP Bio . Genes blow my mind, you create any three eyed mice yet DJ or what?

He needs to make one of these:

[youtube][/youtube]

wideright82 wrote:Yeah, I don't remember much from AP Bio . Genes blow my mind, you create any three eyed mice yet DJ or what?

Nah, I'd rather not work with mice or anything with more than one cell... but for some reason my lab has taken a non-human infective strain of an organism and put in a gene that makes it infective to humans. There is a point to that research... which was to show that gene is responsible for immunity to the human immune system.


Anyway, the point of this whole discussion wasn't really genetics, it was where to do you draw the line. Sex? Genetics leading to severe disability? Genetics that lead to brown eyes instead of blue?

JMU DJ wrote:

wideright82 wrote:Yeah, I don't remember much from AP Bio . Genes blow my mind, you create any three eyed mice yet DJ or what?

Nah, I'd rather not work with mice or anything with more than one cell... but for some reason my lab has taken a non-human infective strain of an organism and put in a gene that makes it infective to humans. There is a point to that research... which was to show that gene is responsible for immunity to the human immune system.


Anyway, the point of this whole discussion wasn't really genetics, it was where to do you draw the line. Sex? Genetics leading to severe disability? Genetics that lead to brown eyes instead of blue?

OHHH so you assholes invented AIDS Jr. cool. Thanks.

wideright82 wrote:OHHH so you assholes invented AIDS Jr. cool. Thanks.

I thought that was invented by Catholic Priest... AKA The Gays

(Just Jokin'... Hammer don't hurt me)

I'm pro-life to begin with so naturally this creeps me out. But what can you do? You can't read people's minds to get their motive for having an abortion.

By the way, this is yet more more proof that what the militant pro-hoice folks tell you (about abortion being a decision that is most often not made lightly) is complete bulls^it. More moderate pro-choice people need to start taking a stand against this disgusting stuff going on.

I'm bothered about the potential shortage of Swedish chicks this could lead to.

Pwns wrote:I'm pro-life to begin with so naturally this creeps me out. But what can you do? You can't read people's minds to get their motive for having an abortion.

By the way, this is yet more more proof that what the militant pro-hoice folks tell you (about abortion being a decision that is most often not made lightly) is complete bulls^it. More moderate pro-choice people need to start taking a stand against this disgusting stuff going on.

it doesn't prove that. It proves that this woman is sick of having daughters. Nice extrapolation though

wideright82 wrote:

Pwns wrote:I'm pro-life to begin with so naturally this creeps me out. But what can you do? You can't read people's minds to get their motive for having an abortion.

By the way, this is yet more more proof that what the militant pro-hoice folks tell you (about abortion being a decision that is most often not made lightly) is complete bulls^it. More moderate pro-choice people need to start taking a stand against this disgusting stuff going on.

it doesn't prove that. It proves that this woman is sick of having daughters. Nice extrapolation though

So I am to believe having an abortion is a very tough choice to make for most women even in the direst circumstances even though many don't seem to even flinch at having an abortion because they don't like the gender of their baby?

Pwns wrote:

wideright82 wrote:

it doesn't prove that. It proves that this woman is sick of having daughters. Nice extrapolation though

So I am to believe having an abortion is a very tough choice to make for most women even in the direst circumstances even though many don't seem to even flinch at having an abortion because they don't like the gender of their baby?

Huh? The article mentions 1 woman, where do get many from?

Pwns wrote:

wideright82 wrote:

it doesn't prove that. It proves that this woman is sick of having daughters. Nice extrapolation though

So I am to believe having an abortion is a very tough choice to make for most women even in the direst circumstances even though many don't seem to even flinch at having an abortion because they don't like the gender of their baby?

Again, master of extrapolation.

BlueHen86 wrote:

Pwns wrote:
So I am to believe having an abortion is a very tough choice to make for most women even in the direst circumstances even though many don't seem to even flinch at having an abortion because they don't like the gender of their baby?

Huh? The article mentions 1 woman, where do get many from?

It's safe to say he missed my point.