Sweden approves gender-based abortions

posted at 10:46 am on May 13, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Amanda Carpenter makes this the Hot Button issue at the Washington Times today, and it provides an interesting juxtaposition to a post I wrote last month.  Sweden has approved gender-specific abortions, allowing parents to rid themselves of an unwanted daughter in a closely-watched ethics case:

Swedish women will be permitted to abort their children based on the sex of the fetus, according to a ruling by Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare.

The ruling was spurred by a request from Kai Wedenberg, head of the clinic where a woman twice requested, and received, an abortion based on sex.

Mr. Wedenberg asked for clarification from health officials after a woman, who already had two girls, requested amniocentesis and to be told the sex of her unborn child. She found out she was pregnant with another girl and asked for an abortion six days later.

The woman then became pregnant again, returned to the clinic and asked for another amniocentesis, which was not performed. Later, at her ultrasound, she asked the nurse to reveal the sex of her fetus, which was a girl. After learning this, the mother requested an abortion later that day and received it later that week.

Last month, I noted the opposition of the abortion-rights group Center for Reproductive Rights to the same practice in China, where the state’s one-child policy makes gender selection more important for parents.  Sweden has no such restrictions; in this case, the woman already had two daughters and wants a son.  CRR opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, putting their fright over what they call “fetus rights” over their objections to gender-specific infanticide.

At least Sweden remained consistent.  Unlike the CRR, their decision reluctantly noted that the woman’s motivation was irrelevant if one accepts that someone can “choose” to end human life as a right.  One wonders whether CRR will protest this decision in Sweden as they do in China, extending their intellectual confusion over the nature of “choice” as an absolute right.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

Even the variance in Europe’s population has to be viewed in context. Europe is being assimilated by Islamic culture which was brought in to build the automobiles and other labor tasks. We have our Mexican immigrants Europe has its Arab immigrants. Their indigent population is growing. Our indigent population is growing. Our middle and upper class populations are declining as are Europe’s. Britain is now pandering to the Arab immigrants in their midst. Cal-eee-forn-ya is continuing to pander to the illegals in their midst.

viking01 on May 13, 2009 at 4:45 PM

To state my point bluntly, by definition, eugenics is a practice intended to improve the gene pool. People have to be able to contribute to the gene pool for eugenics to be relevant.

thuja on May 13, 2009 at 4:41 PM

Hence Margaret Sanger’s support of eugenics. It all ties together.

coyoterex on May 13, 2009 at 4:47 PM

To state my point bluntly, by definition, eugenics is a practice intended to improve the gene pool. People have to be able to contribute to the gene pool for eugenics to be relevant.

thuja on May 13, 2009 at 4:41 PM

The Holocaust was implemented to “improve” the gene pool. If they’ve been gassed they can’t breed.

You may as well stop playing silly word games.

viking01 on May 13, 2009 at 4:48 PM

Seriously, I don’t care. If the Republican party, which I’ve never even paid attention to, nevermind cared about, wishes to make this their core issue……be my guest.

I just think you’re going to disappear.

AnninCA on May 13, 2009 at 1:33 PM

Wow, this is not about Republican vs Democrat!!! Do you have a conscience? I am amazed at how cavalier you are about this. I hate abortion, but if the mother of the baby is in danger, and it is a very early on in the pregnancy, all sides would have to be weighed. But to abort two, even one baby because you don’t like it’s gender! I really think you might want to reconsider your stance on this.

Susanboo on May 13, 2009 at 4:51 PM

thuja on May 13, 2009 at 4:41 PM

Got to love those intentions right? To state my point bluntly, abortion is taking persons out of the gene pool. Killing the elderly is taking them out of the gene pool ( males at least ). The same arguments btw for eugenics went into why we should kill the elderly….limited resources.

It isn’t a matter of Logans run now…but that is the logical step. Why were the elderly, defined by anyone who was over 30 right? The people doing the killing get to define who is worthy to die and who isn’t.

Conservative Voice on May 13, 2009 at 4:51 PM

Hmmm, the current generation decides who in the next generation lives or dies.

Nothing tyrannical about that.

Nosiree.

nico on May 13, 2009 at 4:53 PM

thuja on May 13, 2009 at 4:41 PM

Logan’s Run scenario which is pretty impossible given that old people vote more than other groups

So thats the breakdown…whoever can vote, as long as you aren’t in the minority…you are OK to live. Good to know how You define who should live and who should die. So can we kill teenagers then? They are so annoying you know, and they can’t vote yet.

You have heard of power of attorney right? Sorry Dick Cheney, you don’t get to vote, we don’t like what you say, the population police have spoken…

Conservative Voice on May 13, 2009 at 4:57 PM

If the lazy indigents kill off their parents then who will be around to raise those offspring as the grandparents often do in current indigent populations? From every angle the culture of death for convenience shoots itself in the foot.

viking01 on May 13, 2009 at 4:57 PM

some people out there who uses eugenics to wipe out the “weak”…and “weak” is defined by whoever is doing the killing.

Conservative Voice on May 13, 2009 at 4:39 PM

Who are these people who use eugenics this way? Not even when the Nazi regime abused the word “eugenics” did they argue for killing the weak. The Nazis eugenics program used sterilization and sterilized more than 400,000 people.

Perhaps, you are thinking of Ancient Sparta? As long as we have MTV and Hollywood, we aren’t going to want to live like a Spartan.

thuja on May 13, 2009 at 4:58 PM

thuja on May 13, 2009 at 4:58 PM

You still around? By now you have used up more precious oxygen and produced untold green house gases – do the honorable thing.

dpierson on May 13, 2009 at 5:01 PM

thuja on May 13, 2009 at 4:58 PM

The Nazis didn’t just sterilize them. They killed them and experimented on them “for science.” The Japanese did the same to the Manchurians. Stalin sent his undesirables to death Siberia for “re-education” along with their entire families. Sometimes their entire kindred.

You failed history, right?

viking01 on May 13, 2009 at 5:02 PM

Here, this was in my e-mail yesterday, and is great for all you Democrats that want to make this solely a Republican vs Democrat issue. I personally think it is a moral vs immoral issue:

THE PLAN…..

A) Allow those men who want to marry men, marry men.

B) Allow those women who want to marry women, marry women.

C) Allow those folks who want to abort their babies, abort
their babies.

… in 3 generations there will be no Democrats.

Damn, I love it when a plan comes together.

Susanboo on May 13, 2009 at 5:02 PM

My God, you merciless moron, get your facts straight:

“Forced sterilization in Germany was the forerunner of the systematic killing of the mentally ill and the handicapped. In October 1939, Hitler himself initiated a decree which empowered physicians to grant a “mercy death” to “patients considered incurable according to the best available human judgment of their state of health.” The intent of the socalled “euthanasia” program, however, was not to relieve the suffering of the chronically ill. The Nazi regime used the term as a euphemism: its aim was to exterminate the mentally ill and the handicapped, thus “cleansing” the Aryan race of persons considered genetically defective and a financial burden to society.”

Found here……..http://www.holocaust-trc.org/hndcp.htm

nico on May 13, 2009 at 5:02 PM

Well, it’s time for me to be off to the gym. I want to keep fit. I don’t want a visit from Obama’s eugenics police.

thuja on May 13, 2009 at 5:03 PM

Well, it’s time for me to be off to the gym. I want to keep fit. I don’t want a visit from Obama’s eugenics police.

thuja on May 13, 2009 at 5:03 PM

LOL!!!

Susanboo on May 13, 2009 at 5:05 PM

– do the honorable thing.

dpierson on May 13, 2009 at 5:01 P

LOL. What would be the greenest way for him to go? Perhaps bungee jumping without securing the business end. Directly above Michelle Obama’s herb garden for maximum recycling potential.

viking01 on May 13, 2009 at 5:06 PM

Who are these people who use eugenics this way? Not even when the Nazi regime abused the word “eugenics” did they argue for killing the weak. The Nazis eugenics program used sterilization and sterilized more than 400,000 people.

Perhaps, you are thinking of Ancient Sparta? As long as we have MTV and Hollywood, we aren’t going to want to live like a Spartan.

thuja on May 13, 2009 at 4:58 PM

You are conveniently forgetting those pesky Holocaust victims. Estimates of between 6-21 million people killed. 6 million Jews, and millions of other “undesirables”.

coyoterex on May 13, 2009 at 5:07 PM

thuja on May 13, 2009 at 5:03 PM

Distort and run?

nico on May 13, 2009 at 5:07 PM

Distort and run?

nico on May 13, 2009 at 5:07 PM

To be expected. He’ll probably jog on a treadmill assembled by slave laborers already harvested for body parts. For the children.

viking01 on May 13, 2009 at 5:10 PM

thuja on May 13, 2009 at 4:58 PM

Either life is sacred, or it isn’t. Either all persons are equal under the law, or they aren’t. MTV isn’t going to protect you, especially when they are in love with the regime in charge. You don’t think Hitler didn’t control the media? Or other dictator-thugs?

Conservative Voice on May 13, 2009 at 5:11 PM

To be expected. He’ll probably jog on a treadmill assembled by slave laborers already harvested for body parts. For the children.

viking01 on May 13, 2009 at 5:10 PM

Willful ignorance with an opinion. But, hey, it claims access to a dictionary. I know I’m convinced.

nico on May 13, 2009 at 5:18 PM

LOL. What would be the greenest way for him to go? Perhaps bungee jumping without securing the business end. Directly above Michelle Obama’s herb garden for maximum recycling potential.
viking01 on May 13, 2009 at 5:06 PM

I would personally opt for a late term abortion procedure performed without benefit of anesthetics.

dpierson on May 13, 2009 at 5:21 PM

would personally opt for a late term abortion procedure performed without benefit of anesthetics.

dpierson on May 13, 2009 at 5:21 PM

Can I work the scissors?

nico on May 13, 2009 at 5:24 PM

nico on May 13, 2009 at 5:18 PM

Speaking of dictionaries there’s a biography of Charles Murray and others who put together the OED. Central to their task was realizing that dictionaries just as interpretations of words become obsolete and varied at a moments notice.

The problem Thuja’s shallow mentality suffers is the dictionary becomes the word rather than the meaning in context of the word. He reminds me of an insecure English teacher I had who obsessed with “Shakespeare meant this” or “Shakespeare meant that.” I asked her “What makes you so sure?” “The glossary”, she replied. I replied something like: “So if I were to tell Shakespeare it must be swell to be so cool riding his wave of popularity then would he think I was paying him a compliment or discussing the weather and when the tide would be coming in?” She said, “What.” I said “Check your glossary.”

viking01 on May 13, 2009 at 5:30 PM

viking01 on May 13, 2009 at 5:30 PM

Well put. I suspect that those who cite dictionaries in debate, do so because they are bereft of any other weapon. It’s the last resort of an unformed mind.

It’s hard to sit by and watch something like that rejoice in the killing of others. 40,000,000 others by its own estimate. A mental midget in favor of culling the herd. Ironic, isn’t it?

nico on May 13, 2009 at 5:38 PM

Well put. I suspect that those who cite dictionaries in debate, do so because they are bereft of any other weapon. It’s the last resort of an unformed mind.

It’s hard to sit by and watch something like that rejoice in the killing of others. 40,000,000 others by its own estimate. A mental midget in favor of culling the herd. Ironic, isn’t it?

nico on May 13, 2009 at 5:38 PM

It is quite ironic. It is pure self centered selfishness. Don’t overpopulate “my” Earth.

coyoterex on May 13, 2009 at 5:43 PM

coyoterex on May 13, 2009 at 5:43 PM

Projecting personhood on a planet, but denying it to a person. It’s one of the most twisted ideologies I’ve ever come across…………and one of the most intellectually barren.

A is A.

nico on May 13, 2009 at 5:49 PM

thuja on May 13, 2009 at 4:41 PM

Logan’s Run scenario which is pretty impossible given that old people vote more than other groups

This is a specious (and dated) argument considering that quite a bit of the statutes and propositions voted on by the public have been overturned by judicial fiat.

vapig on May 13, 2009 at 6:14 PM

Perhaps, you are thinking of Ancient Sparta? As long as we have MTV and Hollywood, we aren’t going to want to live like a Spartan.

thuja on May 13, 2009 at 4:58 PM

Maybe he was thinking of Darfur or one of the other African countries that are ethnically cleansing their countries because of the whole islam/christian or tribal thing.

Also, don’t forget we had that little thing in the Balkins 10 years ago.

vapig on May 13, 2009 at 6:17 PM

So, Liberals. If it is a girl, is it a girl fetus or a girl baby?

GunRunner on May 13, 2009 at 6:41 PM

I think people can go overboard with the abortion issue.

But to not respect life to this extent is pretty disgusting.

therightwinger on May 13, 2009 at 6:56 PM

But to not respect life to this extent is pretty disgusting.

therightwinger on May 13, 2009 at 6:56 PM

As opposed to this extent???

Jamson64 on May 13, 2009 at 6:59 PM

As opposed to this extent???

It’s just not realistic to ban abortion. Not gonna happen.

therightwinger on May 13, 2009 at 7:14 PM

It’s just not realistic to ban abortion. Not gonna happen.

therightwinger on May 13, 2009 at 7:14 PM

What does that have to do with your earlier point?

Jamson64 on May 13, 2009 at 7:21 PM

BTW did you click the link? Sickening…BTW I never said a ban would occur.

Jamson64 on May 13, 2009 at 7:22 PM

mothers whose lives are endangered clearly should always come first.

I am a mom of three beautiful children. I would no more abort any of them to save my own life than I would leave them in a burning building to save my own life.

Kim Priestap on May 13, 2009 at 7:33 PM

You are conveniently forgetting those pesky Holocaust victims. Estimates of between 6-21 million people killed. 6 million Jews, and millions of other “undesirables”.

coyoterex on May 13, 2009 at 5:07 PM

The Holocaust was never justified by even the Nazi’s twisted notion of eugenics for the simple reason it was never justified at all.

Anyway, I’m a gay Jew and you can free to imply that I’m somehow in favor of the Nazi’s regime policies all you want. In fact, it’s so silly that I do hope you keep these accusations up.

thuja on May 13, 2009 at 7:33 PM

The Holocaust was never justified
thuja on May 13, 2009 at 7:33 PM

but killing babies not born yet, even if they are partially born…is justified?

Conservative Voice on May 13, 2009 at 7:38 PM

I would no more abort any of them to save my own life than I would leave them in a burning building to save my own life.

Excuse me. I would have no more aborted them to save my own life than I would leave them in a burning building to save my own life.

Kim Priestap on May 13, 2009 at 7:39 PM

The Holocaust was never justified by even the Nazi’s twisted notion of eugenics for the simple reason it was never justified at all.

Anyway, I’m a gay Jew and you can free to imply that I’m somehow in favor of the Nazi’s regime policies all you want. In fact, it’s so silly that I do hope you keep these accusations up.

thuja on May 13, 2009 at 7:33 PM

I implied no such thing. And no reason to play the moral authority card. I am descended from German Jews on one side, myself, so believe that counterbalances your moral authority with my own. =P

I just stated that you had neglected to include those people in your total. I am just curious, since you seem to feel that eugenics was not part of the reason for the Holocaust, what do you feel was the reason it was precipitated? When you look at those that were killed, the main thing they do seem to have in common is that they were so called “undesirables”. The National Socialists wanted them cleansed from the country based upon their ethnic makeup, or other perceived genetic flaws.

coyoterex on May 13, 2009 at 7:51 PM

BTW did you click the link? Sickening…BTW I never said a ban would occur.

I agree it’s sickening. But what can we really do about it?

therightwinger on May 13, 2009 at 7:55 PM

Either life is sacred, or it isn’t. Either all persons are equal under the law, or they aren’t. MTV isn’t going to protect you, especially when they are in love with the regime in charge. You don’t think Hitler didn’t control the media? Or other dictator-thugs?

Conservative Voice on May 13, 2009 at 5:11 PM

Obviously all life is sacred: old people, chimpanzee fetuses, blades of grass, a specimen of E. coli–even that most question life form: college freshmen. I’m not sure how that helps us with the abortion issue.

If we look at the relatively free and decent countries on this planet, they tend to have abortion rights and institute concern about the suffering of animals as laws. In fact, Chile and Poland are the only reasonably free countries that I can think of that aren’t pro-choice on the abortion. (I don’t claim to know every country’s abortion laws, so perhaps there are a couple of other exceptions.) The dictator-thugs tend to ban abortion and not care about the suffering of animals. So, if we are asked to describe countries that their citizens with dignity, we’d have say countries that permit abortions are much more likely to treat their citizens with dignity.

thuja on May 13, 2009 at 7:57 PM

Now if they could just identify the ‘gay gene’… I KEEED!

oddjob1138 on May 13, 2009 at 8:01 PM

thuja on May 13, 2009 at 7:57 PM

like terry schiavo?

And blades of grass, or dogs, is not the same as Persons…because making someone a non-person is exactly how the Nazis rationalized doing the things they did to the Jews…that they weren’t real persons.
In fact that is how abortions are legal, because the court has defined them to be non-persons

Conservative Voice on May 13, 2009 at 8:04 PM

Stop the world I want to get off. This is very upsetting. She had an ultrasound and still killed her own blood. I’m just horrified.

petunia on May 13, 2009 at 8:04 PM

I’m trying to figure out whom most western countries resemble more: the Vulgarians, Aztecs, or Canaanites.

Send_Me on May 13, 2009 at 8:04 PM

I am just curious, since you seem to feel that eugenics was not part of the reason for the Holocaust, what do you feel was the reason it was precipitated? When you look at those that were killed, the main thing they do seem to have in common is that they were so called “undesirables”. The National Socialists wanted them cleansed from the country based upon their ethnic makeup, or other perceived genetic flaws.

coyoterex on May 13, 2009 at 7:51 PM

You ask a good challenging question here. Unfortunately, I’m going to sleep in an hour and a half and find it is not good for me to think deeply before going to sleep. If you’d like to continue this conversation tomorrow and this tread is dead, you can reach me at vayikra at ymail.com.

Shalom.

thuja on May 13, 2009 at 8:07 PM

People should mind their own business.

You’re not expected to approve of everyone else’s choices, so stop campaigning to.

Moesart on May 13, 2009 at 8:07 PM

thuja on May 13, 2009 at 7:57 PM

Oh yeah, then how do you describe long-enacted China’s one child policy. The USSR was one of the first countries in the world to allow abortion; before even Sweden as this post said. Of course, the USSR was a model of treating its citizens with dignity. Please read a history book before making asinine comments.

TimTebowSavesAmerica on May 13, 2009 at 8:36 PM

People should mind their own business.
You’re not expected to approve of everyone else’s choices, so stop campaigning to.
Moesart on May 13, 2009 at 8:07 PM

Silly comment: If someone’s choice kills a human being then I have the right to interfere. That principle is already enshrined in law. Somehow unborn babies have not been extended the same courtesy.

dpierson on May 13, 2009 at 8:41 PM

People should mind their own business.
You’re not expected to approve of everyone else’s choices, so stop campaigning to.
Moesart on May 13, 2009 at 8:07 PM

How far are you willing to take this? Would you want me to intervene if a group of men were mugging you? Rest assured, I would. My purpose is to defend those who cannot defend themselves, such as unborn children. Can you prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that a fetus is not worthy of the natural rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Every pro-choice/pro-abortion argument that I’ve heard stems from one of four things: 1) dependency, 2) development, 3) location, and 4) self-awareness.
Dependency: Should a person have the choice to kill a 4-year-old or an insulin-dependent person?
Development: A 2-month-old is not as developed as an 8-year-old or a 15-year-old. Should we, therefore, have the option of terminating the life of the 2-month-old?
Location: Does a person’s value change from one location to the next? From the store to the car to the workplace? Why then would we apply this standard here?
Self-awareness: Do we value a 25-year-old moreover an 8-year-old because the older is more self-aware?

Send_Me on May 13, 2009 at 8:43 PM

I am just curious, since you seem to feel that eugenics was not part of the reason for the Holocaust, what do you feel was the reason it was precipitated? When you look at those that were killed, the main thing they do seem to have in common is that they were so called “undesirables”. The National Socialists wanted them cleansed from the country based upon their ethnic makeup, or other perceived genetic flaws.
coyoterex on May 13, 2009 at 7:51 PM

There have been pogroms against the Jews in Europe since the before Middle Ages. Some reasons I have seen were: different religion, money lending practices (especially to the aristocracy who then encouraged the pogrom to wipe out their debt), living practices in terms of their isolation from the Christians, issues with the guild or any other organization they might have competed against.
Hitler added the subhuman piece to the formula and was much more focused on eradicating the Jews but he by no means was the first to kill/persecute them.
The best thing that ever happened for the Jews was the state of Israel, but they had to take it by force. That’s why I am always a staunch supporter of Israel – they have hundreds of years of good reasons to want a secure home state.

dpierson on May 13, 2009 at 8:47 PM

Send_Me on May 13, 2009 at 8:43 PM

Excellent post. If you add the fact that it is scientifically proven that life begins at conception there is really no argument left other than: I will abort because I want to and I can.

dpierson on May 13, 2009 at 8:51 PM

Morally and intellectually bankrupt scum. All that can be said.

NoDonkey on May 13, 2009 at 9:32 PM

People should mind their own business.
You’re not expected to approve of everyone else’s choices, so stop campaigning to.
Moesart on May 13, 2009 at 8:07 PM

This is undoubtedly a quote by a youngster.

Public schools and our sewer of a pop culture have drilled into their heads to be “tolerant”. This is what we get now.

Morally and intellectually bankrupt cretins. These people are so vacuous that discourse with them is completely pointless. The believe in nothing besides their own extra-specialness and they will defend nothing.

Nihilism and cynicism are what pass for intellect these days. Truly disturbing.

NoDonkey on May 13, 2009 at 9:39 PM

People should mind their own business.

You’re not expected to approve of everyone else’s choices, so stop campaigning to.

Moesart on May 13, 2009 at 8:07 PM

Sure, let everyone do whatever they want. *eye roll* Murder is just a choice on someones part. So is rape, theft, armed robbery, and a myriad of other “choices”.

coyoterex on May 13, 2009 at 10:14 PM

Never again?…How about one documented time when someone used a coat hanger? Any facts on a death caused by a coat hanger used to abort an innocent baby? Not liberal facts,..but real honest documentation.

christene on May 13, 2009 at 10:44 PM

What gets me about the coat-hanger is that it is supposed to make us feel sorry for the woman who chose to stick it into herself, but not for the baby she was trying to kill with it.

These women are inhuman. The people who drill it into their heads that they aren’t killing their own children are even worse. Monsters.

evergreen on May 13, 2009 at 11:02 PM

This is truly fascinating.

Pro-abortion groups – normally or at least nominally “women’s rights groups” – chafing at abortion based on gender of the fetus, presumably because such a choice favors male fetuses over female fetuses. Because of this, these pro-abortion/women’s groups would find at least a slightly greater bit of protection for female feutses than male fetuses. (well, some protection is more than none.

Fascinating, truly fascinating.

The Left has apparently recognized a right of some sort on the part of female fetuses.

Fascinating…

seanrobins on May 13, 2009 at 11:08 PM

It would not matter if 3/4 of the human race perished, if the remaining 1/4 were Socialist.

-Lenin-

GunRunner on May 13, 2009 at 11:24 PM

I’m going to sleep in an hour and a half and find it is not good for me to think deeply before going to sleep. If you’d like to continue this conversation tomorrow and this tread is dead, you can reach me at vayikra at ymail.com.

Shalom.

thuja on May 13, 2009 at 8:07 PM

This is gag, right? You can’t be real. You’re a caricature. You’re a joke. Gotta be.

nico on May 13, 2009 at 11:25 PM

At the heart of all this is a scientific cult of eugenicists. Eugenics never went away, it just integrated itself political parties and put on a “were here to help” face.

True_King on May 14, 2009 at 7:35 AM

Obviously all life is sacred: old people, chimpanzee fetuses, blades of grass, a specimen of E. coli–even that most question life form: college freshmen. I’m not sure how that helps us with the abortion issue.

thuja on May 13, 2009 at 7:57 PM

Holy crap. People can not be equated with plant, bacterial, viral or animal life. The same bullshite that my teachers used to spew to us that the splitting cells of cancer and a baby both met the requirements for life!

This is the kind of leftist moral equivalency that just drives me nutz! Pathetic!

vapig on May 14, 2009 at 8:48 AM

even if it means no girls for their son to marry.

Can you spell C-H-I-N-A?

oldleprechaun on May 14, 2009 at 10:27 AM

So I guess they’re saying it’s OK to descriminate against males even before they’re born? Could you imagine if they said it was OK to abort based upon race?

TrickyDick on May 14, 2009 at 1:38 PM

Now if they could just identify the ‘gay gene’… I KEEED!

oddjob1138 on May 13, 2009 at 8:01 PM

Got this in my e-mail today, American Psychological Association is now admitting that there is no gay gene. Here is the link:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageld=97940

Susanboo on May 14, 2009 at 1:43 PM

So I guess they’re saying it’s OK to discriminate against males even before they’re born? Could you imagine if they said it was OK to abort based upon race?

TrickyDick on May 14, 2009 at 1:38 PM

That’s not only accepted – it’s probably the group encouraged most to consider abortion.


http://www.blackgenocide.org/black.html

Candy Slice on May 14, 2009 at 2:44 PM

People should mind their own business.

You’re not expected to approve of everyone else’s choices, so stop campaigning to.

Moesart on May 13, 2009 at 8:07 PM

Kitty Genovese redux.

unclesmrgol on May 14, 2009 at 10:07 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5