Something doesn't sit right with selective abortion for IQ or gender purposes in me, I'll start by saying that. That said... the logical conclusion I reach from my position on abortion is that the reason really doesn't matter, so it's not justifiable to outlaw abortions for specific motivations.

Agreed PE. That sums up my position perfectly. Obviously I'd prefer those things not happen, but I don't really think it's anyone's place to try and examine a woman's reasons for having an abortion.

we're doing cosmetic abortions. i impregnate the wife constantly, then we look at the ultrasound before deciding. i'm looking for a good forehead to face ratio. the science isn't perfect though, cause i think those things can change while in the womb. but i think with our strategy we'll have the best odds of a good looking kid.

Loving the idea of pre-born IQ tests :p. Do tell us how the hell that could even work :)

I guess that sits on your conscience. (I'm referring to the obvious trolling, not the high number of abortions this would entail.)

(That was @ bolshoi) Also good point Octavious, can't believe I missed that.

what do you mean how would pre-birth iq tests work? they already do it all the time if there's a problem with the brain that would cause low iq the doctor recommends abortion. you can do tests to measure the brain size relative to an average fetus at that development, or development of different regions of it. or things like that. so thinking it's not possible is kind of naive.

i mean now they just recommend for serious defects, but in the future they certainly could extend it further.

Only if intelligence is genetically determined to a very high degree. I don't think that's an assumption we're justified in making.

>>boslohi's comments
>implying intelligence is a strictly natural or genetic thing and not influenced by post-birth environment

http://i.iflip.im/t/creepy-condescending-wonka.jpg

====

Also on a practical level, how in the world do you check for motivations, anyway? Seems like it would be incredibly easy for a woman to go in, get her screening, and claim to have had a change of heart about her pregnancy for unrelated reasons (sudden financial downturn, realization that hey, pregnancy and raising a kid is really really difficult, etc.) and then get her undesired-sex-fetus aborted. Even if we agreed that we should ban sex-selective abortion (which is extremely tendentious in itself), it just seems entirely too easy to claim plausible deniability with regard to one's reasons for getting the abortion.

hahaha, yes, saying that intelligence can be predicted from fetus development means that it's not influenced at all by the post-birth environment.

so if there is no predictive value at all, then i guess people with fas should get off the disability bandwagon, there fetal development had nothing to do with their future lives.

I was mainly referring to your final comment, which makes a very serious jump that's not really logically valid. Environment matters a *lot* in terms of what we consider development of intelligence. Hell, intelligence is going to be *defined* by environment on some level. It's such that the reason that doctors don't recommend for more than serious defects is not the result of ignorance on their part but rather the innate inability to project "intelligence" as we think of it accurately.

Eh, but once this kind of thing gets more common, it won't matter how bad the logic is. If there's an ability to test for genes that MAY be linked to intelligence, people will go ahead and do it just in case.

After all, for a fixed set of parents, the environmental factors will be more or less fixed.

Any child who has parents so controlling and heartless that they are willing to carry out such tests and cull off their less promising offspring has such a huge disadvantage in life that no amount of good genetics will make up for it.

Abortion should be mandatory unless the father supplies written permission to go through with the birth.

YJ, you go too far, "Abortion should be mandatory."

There we have the anti-life position in a nutshell.
As for gender selection - though i don't really want to see this in the world, the fact is, increased male:female ratio will devalue the male with respect of the female, and self-balance the preference. (ie people living in cultures with arranged marriages where females are currently undervalued for economic reasons will soon find females fetching a high price, or males emigrating to find wives... but eventually the system will correct itself, without need for legal remedy)

Anti - life position in a nutshell?

No, that's a hyperbolic position in a nutshell, and a pro-lifer's warped idea of what a pro-choice stance actually means.

I believe that the fetus does meet the four criteria of life, and is therefore a human being from the moment of conception (morning-after pills are OK in my book). That being said, its right to life is more important than its mother's right to choose.

@YJ, No, the pro-choice position is not the same as the anti-life position, which of course favours mandatory abortions for all.

I believe either position which has mandatory births or mandatory abortions is anti-choice...

@Gunfighter, i don't know what the four criteria are, but when does a fetus stop being an embryo in your book? oh, and I still take the position that any mother-to-be who wants an abortion should have access to one - the pro-life stance is contrary to the welfare of the potential child.

I'm not by any stretch pro-life, but to mention again the whole "fetus IQ" thing...

My son has FASD. I can't really say if anyone was aware of this before his birth as no one I know was personally aware of the circumstances leading to his birth, but let's say for sake of argument that it was known pre-birth. He came into my care when he was 4, and he did not have the ability to count to ten, recognize letters, say the alphabet, basically, on any testable level of intelligence he was well behind.

Now, at 9, he's in the advanced level of fourth grade. So, biologically and early development wise, you'd think this would be a kid that was on the low end, but it just shows how much environment matters.

I agree with orathaic, though, on the broad strokes of abortion rights.

A fetus is alive. There's just no arguing this fact.... it is a clump of living human cells. It is human life.

The question is whether it is worth legal protections, and the answer is not as straightforward as some (most?) might like to think. Your arm is human life, but to call it "murder" to get an amputation would be ridiculous. So, too, would it be ridiculous to call pulling the plug on a patient in a coma with very small prospects of living "murder."

@ orathaic

Okay, maybe the four criteria isn't the best benchmark. IMHO, it becomes a person at the moment of conception.

@PE - In many states, your last example *is* murder unless the patient has a living will stating they *want* the plug to be pulled under those conditions.

A 21 week old premature baby (ex-foetus) has a reasonable chance of being viable. A 21 week old foetus may also be legally aborted. I see these two facts as contradictory.

person it is not. I'm friends with person(s), they have personalities.

the coma example, and the amputated arms both fail on the criteria, and we recognise them as different largely because they fail. Though i suppose if our culture had developed with biology being that amputated arms could re-grow entire bodies and re-develope personalities we might think differently...

Female foeticide is very much an ongoing problem in the UK:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-17336799
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/23/sex-selection-abortions-investigated?newsfeed=true

Let's hope that it doesn't reach the appallingly high levels seen in India:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4427712.stm

Many, quite correctly in my view, see this gendocide as a matter of women's rights:
http://www.adfvc.unsw.edu.au/Conference%20papers/TIWC/GhanshamDevakiMonani.pdf

"@PE - In many states, your last example *is* murder unless the patient has a living will stating they *want* the plug to be pulled under those conditions."

Even if, say, the family is running out of money and can't finance it?

Yep, even if they are running out of money. They have to get the cpourts to order it if no living will has been produced as the doctor's won't do it without one and the courts don't agree to it, generally speaking, unless it can be shown that the lack of a living will was an oversight. The best the family can do in most cases is declare bankruptcy and leave the medical bills to the public.

What you should realize though is that no hospital can put a garnishment on you without a court order and then they must show that you have the income to pay the debt. If you have run out of money, then you become eligible for one of the "free bed funds" and they have to go there before trying to collect from you.

i just re-read the opening : abortions based on low IQ - the doctor comes in and informs the parents that their foetus has an IQ of only 4, so they abort.... not realising it may develop over time...

Sacred, congrats on your son.

Actually didn't know that, Draug. I suppose that example isn't as illustrative as I thought - rather it seems to extend the dilemma to another circumstance. Oops.

You go sacred dady

Well fulhamish, what you think is irrelevant, as it's an issue that will never impact your health, or your body.

And other people think that allowing women to make choices concerning their own bodies will lead to a less sexist society in which sex selection will occur less often. Has it occurred to you that female children are undesirable because in many societies they're seen as nothing more than ambulatory baby incubators?