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.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
I think that was so Obama’s first 100 days… Now it’s
“Let’s be like fascist Europe.”
Keep up with the trends – tsk tsk
Upstater85 on May 13, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Some weeks ago there was a post by the Oddball of this blog about how wonderful life is in post-Christian Scandinavia. Funny how the most vocal dissenters were actual Scandinavians. Societal suicide by abortion and Wahabi immigration is not a pretty sight.
Ted Torgerson on May 13, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Just keep doing it until you get it right, I suppose.
Horrifying.
Greg Toombs on May 13, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Since they only pick out one cell, there is always the chance that they get a spurious defective one, or even one of the mother’s cells. Heck, you could even get a false positive for a male baby, if the mother already had a boy, because some of the previous baby’s cells will have migrated into the mother (though I’m guessing that picking a cell from a previous child doesn’t happen that often).
Count to 10 on May 13, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Ah yes! Her plan was to do away with the undesirables (read: balck people).
I have always marvelled at the black community and their consistant donk voting when it’s the donks who keep pushing abortion and federally funded (those are the poor women they are talking about) abortion – on them!
vapig on May 13, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Though I read that she was also strongly against abortion, as much as she was strongly for contraceptives.
Count to 10 on May 13, 2009 at 11:42 AM
Abort the child
because its not the sex you wanted?That is fu*king outrageous.
Dave Rywall on May 13, 2009 at 11:30 AM
FIFY
CDeb on May 13, 2009 at 11:33 AM
——
You’re more than entitled to your opinion.
Dave Rywall on May 13, 2009 at 11:43 AM
Abort the child because its not the sex you wanted?
That is fu*king outrageous.
Dave Rywall on May 13, 2009 at 11:30 AM
More so than aborting because of any other personal choice reason?
Count to 10 on May 13, 2009 at 11:36 AM
———
Yes.
I’m pro-choice but anti-abortion.
Dave Rywall on May 13, 2009 at 11:44 AM
The logic conclusion of Sanger’s principles can be seen in the Nazi eugenics experiments and the holocaust.
dpierson on May 13, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Wow. That solves all the problems, just cover both sides of the issues and any need for deep thought goes away.
dpierson on May 13, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Quick statement about people who say things like the sign in the pick.
If your’e stupid enough to get an abortion by shoving a coat hanger up your vag, you have no sympothy from me if you get injured, sick, and/or die from it. So the whole “well then back alley abortions will happen again” explanation doesn’t work on me.
DethMetalCookieMonst on May 13, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Unless someone decides she wants one.
JiangxiDad on May 13, 2009 at 11:47 AM
Which is pretty much exactly what Margaret Sanger, one of Planned Parenthood’s founders, wanted. It’s only a matter of time before the travesty of selective abortion happens here.
Dems are already clamoring for it – recall how outraged they were when they learned Palin didn’t want to abort Trig.
Vic on May 13, 2009 at 11:47 AM
Wow. That solves all the problems, just cover both sides of the issues and any need for deep thought goes away.
dpierson on May 13, 2009 at 11:46 AM
—–
I have neither the time nor the energy to explain this simple position to you.
Dave Rywall on May 13, 2009 at 11:47 AM
It works for SS.Shrillary.
JiangxiDad on May 13, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Let’s make it available, but safe and rare–unless someone wants to have as many of them as possible. That’s cool too :)
JiangxiDad on May 13, 2009 at 11:49 AM
Because you can’t. 10 minutes of High School logic class would make that clear to you.
dpierson on May 13, 2009 at 11:49 AM
Translation: “I’m all in favor of drinking koolaid unless Jim Jones is in charge of production.”
Rovin on May 13, 2009 at 11:50 AM
So let’s see if I have this right…
American Progressives push for equalizing everyone’s financial situation – i.e. everyone except the ruling class is impoverished.
They urge people to have 1-2 children (if any)… but of course the ignorant poor multiply much quicker than the ruling class, so they STRONGLY push abortions…
Then, they get to turn around and without flinching refer to themselves as “liberals”
Did I miss anything?
Upstater85 on May 13, 2009 at 11:52 AM
When you allow the first abortion to happen you are immediately no longer pro-life. Arguing both sides of this is intellectually dishonest.
dpierson on May 13, 2009 at 11:53 AM
It’s logically impossible for a liberal, socialist society to limit choice when ‘choice’ is the sacrament of modern Feminism.
The whole point of ‘choice’ is that it’s absolute.
Asher on May 13, 2009 at 11:54 AM
No need. We’ve heard the explanation before and found it…wanting.
CDeb on May 13, 2009 at 11:55 AM
Point well made. I honestly think it will take a person on a national level to speak these truths and finally tune like-minded women in to what is going on outside of women’s very busy lives.
Who’s going to volunteer to run throught the “feminist” meat grinder and do that?
I’m honestly to the point that I believe feminism is now a celebration of female failure. They are so angry when confronted with real women being truly successful. The only thing they want to protect is a reproductive organ, but nothing that is attached to it.
While smart women are off making good with the tools provided by the early suffragettes, faux feminists are regressive, placing chains and boundaries on women. They are programming women to be faithful to only the abortion, and disregard anything else that empowers women. The fact that so many young women are duped by this is disheartening, and only demonstrates to me that the business of giving women an education is nothing more than cultish programming, and has nothing to do with making them independent thinkers.
caygeon on May 13, 2009 at 11:55 AM
Actually, gay is more like a mental disorder. Ever notice how people who “discover” they are gay tend to have had messed up stuff happen to them in their life before they “discovered” that they were gay?
DethMetalCookieMonst on May 13, 2009 at 11:56 AM
That makes no sense to me. To me the “choice” was made when the mother engaged in sex.
vapig on May 13, 2009 at 11:56 AM
God cannot even begin to have mercy on abortionists and their clientele as they have no souls.
Do these animals tell the eventual boy “we had to abort 4 girls to get to you, precious, but it was so worth it!!” ?????
Ris4victory on May 13, 2009 at 12:00 PM
A combination of habit/addiction, phobia, and something like Stockholm syndrome (and a different combination for each person), as near as I can tell.
Would people here scream at me if I compared it to the phenomena of born-again-Christians?
Count to 10 on May 13, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Because you can’t. 10 minutes of High School logic class would make that clear to you.
dpierson on May 13, 2009 at 11:49 AM
—–
Don’t want abortions to happen, but know there are circumstances when they have to. So I accept them. Hate that people use it as birth control. They should use birth control as birth control.
Hope for better birth control education, but know governments and parents are often incompetent, not to mention that religions are ignorantly meddlesome.
Hope for less people making bad choices, but know humanity is fairly stupid, so this will never ever ever ever change.
All you can do is decrease the number of abortions and be satisfied with that small victory.
Rape and incest victims or mothers whose lives are endangered clearly should always come first. Not sure how else to put that.
So shove your snark.
Next.
Dave Rywall on May 13, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Good call.
It has been suggested that to be pro-choice is to be anti-woman. To what extent do recent developments in Sweden, and similar ones elsewhere, manifest a collective self-loathing in some intellectual or celebrity (not always one and the same) circles, specifically among women?
manwithblackhat on May 13, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Well, something like that…
“It was very hard on us – you know we had to pay for the procedure 4 times…”
Upstater85 on May 13, 2009 at 12:03 PM
That used to be my position, as well. I’m with drywall here (god forbid) – pro choice, anti-abortion. People should have the choice, even if I don’t like what their choice might be.
lorien1973 on May 13, 2009 at 12:03 PM
You must’ve missed the article that said there is no gay gene. Study of identical twins confirmed it. Gay is a choice – not a condition.
Actually, gay is more like a mental disorder. Ever notice how people who “discover” they are gay tend to have had messed up stuff happen to them in their life before they “discovered” that they were gay?
DethMetalCookieMonst on May 13, 2009 at 11:56 AM
———-
Not sure which post is more moronic. I’m going to say it’s a tie.
Dave Rywall on May 13, 2009 at 12:03 PM
But, but..who are you to judge the validity of someone else’s choice? If it’s just tissue and not a human life, as so many pro-choicers claim, then what does it matter?
Sometimes the slippery slope actually exists. People are already sliding down it at rapid speed.
BakerAllie on May 13, 2009 at 12:03 PM
To me the “choice” was made when the mother engaged in sex.
vapig on May 13, 2009 at 11:56 AM
That used to be my position, as well. I’m with drywall here (god forbid) – pro choice, anti-abortion. People should have the choice, even if I don’t like what their choice might be.
lorien1973 on May 13, 2009 at 12:03 PM
—–
These clowns are living in some black and white dreamworld, as if life is that simple. As if each and every woman put in the position of choosing has the exact same circumstances. Or worse, they think the circumstances don’t matter. How ridiculous.
Dave Rywall on May 13, 2009 at 12:04 PM
They don’t want to protect the reprodective orgin – they want to turn it into a desert. These angry old hags lost me ages ago when one of them promoted only lesbianism and stated that even the act of having sex with a man was rape. That any relations with a man was violating a womans body.
Are you f-ing kidding me???
vapig on May 13, 2009 at 12:05 PM
But, but..who are you to judge the validity of someone else’s choice? If it’s just tissue and not a human life, as so many pro-choicers claim, then what does it matter?
Sometimes the slippery slope actually exists. People are already sliding down it at rapid speed.
BakerAllie on May 13, 2009 at 12:03 PM
——-
Apparently life is too complicated for you. Sorry about that.
Dave Rywall on May 13, 2009 at 12:05 PM
“I am personally opposed to abortion, and would never have one or encourage others to have one. But I also do not feel it is my place to impose my personal moral views on others.”
Reasonably close? It seems to be the the standard fence-straddle: Deflect criticism of one’s personal morality, rationalize support of legalized abortion by convenient arrogation of libertarian principles.
It brings to mind the maxim that all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Pavel on May 13, 2009 at 12:07 PM
The instance of life threatening pregnancies aside, if you make special exception for victims of rape or incest, then it is the guilt or innocence of the mother that is your true motivation, not any right that the child would have.
But all of this is besides the point. Abortions are mostly performed because pregnancy has come to be viewed as an impediment to an ideal life. That is where the real problem is.
Count to 10 on May 13, 2009 at 12:07 PM
The false positive rate on non-invasive Down syndrome screens is 5%. That means that 1 out of 20 children diagnosed with Downs by these tests is actually healthy. Amniocentesis improves the f.p. rate to less than one percent, but the procedure (inserting a needle into the amniotic sac and removing a small sample of fluid) itself has a 1-2% chance of causing a miscarriage.
bitsy on May 13, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Legalizing murder is ridiculous! Women don’t even give their unwanted children up for adoption anymore. They just murder them! Do you know of any orphanages? I know people fly overseas to “buy” babies because there are none here.
That is a sick joke and so amoral I can’t even understand how someone can justify it. To murder the inoffensive – the truly innocent of us all, shows exactly how low we have come as a society. But don’t you dare put that mass murderer to death! Oh no!
/libs suck!
vapig on May 13, 2009 at 12:11 PM
On this point..
Speaking as a woman, if I was so selfish that I would choose murder my child to save my own hide, I would say that I did not get what being a parent or loving your child is all about in the first place.
I get that that’s a controversial opinion, but the aborted child either was a human life or it wasn’t. And if someone believes it’s a life I don’t see how other people’s choices and mistakes justify ending it.
And if it’s not a human life and it is just tissue, then why is reason for aborting more or less justified?
BakerAllie on May 13, 2009 at 12:13 PM
I love it…… I love it not…… I love it…… I love it not……
Shy Guy on May 13, 2009 at 12:13 PM
I’m finding you inconvenient right now.
Should the circumstances matter?
CDeb on May 13, 2009 at 12:13 PM
It’s pretty disgraceful when “civilized” and “progressive” connote murdering an innocent child, and even more hideous, the gender makes a difference now.
Truly sick.
Richard Romano on May 13, 2009 at 12:14 PM
Congratulation Sweden, I hear gender-cleansing is the new black. They are already working on a home pregnancy test that would also tell you the gender. “Oh, darn it! It’s a girl. Honey I’m going to the abortion clinic, don’t forget to water the flowers while I’m flushing out this baby girl.”
And liberals are worried about Global Warming, in our bizarro world the life of a tree is more important than the life of human-being. It’s a sad day for western civilization, shame on you Sweden, shame on you!
Michelle Dubois on May 13, 2009 at 12:16 PM
History never repeats.
See the Nazi’s recipe for the Master Race and disposal of the unterMensch. Also see Sweden’s collusion with the Third Reich.
viking01 on May 13, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Yes, they do.
Should I end the life of my child to make my life easier?
It’s hard to find grey where none exists.
CDeb on May 13, 2009 at 12:16 PM
It’s official.
I hate Europe.
bluelightbrigade on May 13, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Do you want to abort them?
Upstater85 on May 13, 2009 at 12:19 PM
They’re doing such a bang-up job on their own.
CDeb on May 13, 2009 at 12:20 PM
And who usually drives the mother to the abortion clinic? The man who got her pregnant, that’s who. The man who would be responsible for her baby if he didn’t convince her to abort.
Yeah, we all know that the woman should end her right to abort when she — how do you men so crudely put it? “Opens her legs”? But guess what, guys? You sign up for eighteen years of child support the moment you unzip your pants.
Children are OUR responsibility, both men and women. I want to end abortion. That means women keep their babies — and men marry them, or support their children.
bonnie_ on May 13, 2009 at 12:21 PM
For a Jewish perspective of this case and others, see Abortion in Jewish Law.
Shy Guy on May 13, 2009 at 12:21 PM
Yeah, and who are we to intervene on their part anymore? ;)
Upstater85 on May 13, 2009 at 12:21 PM
I think these issues are deeply personal and reflect individual morality.
Those who would abort based on sex reveal something very deeply offensive within themselves to all of us.
But that still doesn’t make this a state issue.
AnninCA on May 13, 2009 at 12:22 PM
And, again, I insist.
Let’s all mind our own business.
AnninCA on May 13, 2009 at 12:23 PM
This is already legal in the U.S., no?
RightOFLeft on May 13, 2009 at 12:24 PM
If a child next door were being abused, would you say the same thing?
Shy Guy on May 13, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Beat me to it.
+1
bluelightbrigade on May 13, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Those who would abort based on sex also wind up with a dead little girl who was killed because she is a girl. How in the world is that not a state issue?
Pavel on May 13, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Even if it wasn’t, it’s not like you have to give a truthful reason for why you used the coat hanger…
Upstater85 on May 13, 2009 at 12:26 PM
Unfortunately the old, haggish feminists are preparing for their lonely retirement to the nursing homes. It’s the new, younger, programmed pit-bulls that have no capability for self-thought that are even more dangerous than the old hags. As they spend their young lives hating contrarian thinking women and family building and anything that might impinge on the sacrament of abortion, they waste their youth on empty promises. How bitter do you think they are going to be when they hit 40 and look back at their desert-plain of accomplishments?
Also, is it just me, or do others find when young attack dog feminists get air-time on TV they absolutely come across as vapid robots with the intellectual depth of a paper clip. Democrats…turning women into useful idiots.
caygeon on May 13, 2009 at 12:27 PM
Let us follow this Progressive logic and implement a Modest Proposal of my own. We should abort unborn babies that are suspected of being gay.
Blue Collar Todd on May 13, 2009 at 12:27 PM
I guess now the focus of the US conservative movement is to push for world wide bans on abortions. Maybe Morrissey can introduce a UN resolution.
Chekote on May 13, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Thank you. I will admit I believe there may be a genetic propensity to be gay, just as some may be genetically more vulnerable to heart disease, etc.
But there’s no homosexuality in nature.
It’s sexual urge.
I see it in the spring here with our bulls-they are so charged up that they practically rape each other.
Humans have more control over their urges than that!
Badger40 on May 13, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Or the “wrong” race.
bluelightbrigade on May 13, 2009 at 12:29 PM
This thread is just another excuse for pro-lifers to feel good about their perceived moral superiority. That’s all.
Chekote on May 13, 2009 at 12:29 PM
In the same resolution we’ll ban hate, torture, carbon dioxide, and nuclear weapons.
Upstater85 on May 13, 2009 at 12:29 PM
I wonder if it occurs to some people that coat hangers don’t cause abortions?
I wonder how many clinic counselors tell clients, this is your baby.
I wonder if anybody at the CRR thinks about the bias they have towards the reproductive rights of people who can talk?
Speakup on May 13, 2009 at 12:30 PM
OK, so go forth.
But do understand, you’ll always lose the women’s vote in doing this.
AnninCA on May 13, 2009 at 12:30 PM
I never feel good about being better than you.
;)
bluelightbrigade on May 13, 2009 at 12:30 PM
J/O session for pro-lifers…
OK, thanks for sharing that. I hope you feel better.
Upstater85 on May 13, 2009 at 12:30 PM
That was a joke, btw.
bluelightbrigade on May 13, 2009 at 12:31 PM
At the risk of the genocide of your own genetic population or even species extinction?
I’d rather not go there.
I prefer meddling in this worthy issue.
Badger40 on May 13, 2009 at 12:31 PM
It is THE main reason Palin wasn’t supported by women.
It will be THE main reason she doesn’t really gain traction.
It is THE main reason Obama won.
I’m serious.
It’s that important to women for the state to get OUT of this issue.
Either stick to this……or lose.
I’m convinced.
AnninCA on May 13, 2009 at 12:32 PM
AnnaC reveals why reducing everything to individual rights and small government is a bad idea.
2Brave2Bscared on May 13, 2009 at 12:32 PM
What women’s vote? At this rate, we’re running a likelihood of aborting a lot of our girls…
bluelightbrigade on May 13, 2009 at 12:32 PM
There’s too much material here:
I’m sure the abolitionists got together, gave out back rubs, then handed out some fliers about something called slavery just before they all told each other how great they were.
Upstater85 on May 13, 2009 at 12:33 PM
That should be AnninCA. My bad.
2Brave2Bscared on May 13, 2009 at 12:33 PM
That’s OK, Badger. I very much hear you.
I’m just telling you.
This is the key divisive issue of your lifetime. Not gay marriage. Not fiscal conservativism.
It’s abortion.
AnninCA on May 13, 2009 at 12:33 PM
I love you.
bluelightbrigade on May 13, 2009 at 12:33 PM
So, is this the ultimate paen to “Every child a wanted child”? You are begging that question.
unclesmrgol on May 13, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Chekote on May 13, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Speaking of perceived superiority…..
Delusions of grandeur.
viking01 on May 13, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Have I told you how great you are on this thread? If not, you are…
Upstater85 on May 13, 2009 at 12:34 PM
So in the next lifetime, where there will be practically none of you and plenty of us…….
Time cures all ills.
Shy Guy on May 13, 2009 at 12:34 PM
I agree. But I still think that it’s within our reach to undergo a cultural shift about the morality of non-life-threatening abortion.
bluelightbrigade on May 13, 2009 at 12:35 PM
That just made my day. Seriously…
:) Thanks.
bluelightbrigade on May 13, 2009 at 12:36 PM
I have a lot of boomer girlfriends. They liked Palin. They were skeptical of Obama.
They were not all that turned off by the Couric interview, because they figured there was liberal bias.
In the end, they voted for Obama. Why?
Abortion.
That’s the reality. All the rest of the talk about why is flutter-nutter.
They were scared of her appointments to the Supreme Court which would overturn abortion rights.
And that is why they veered back to Obama. That is the only reason.
AnninCA on May 13, 2009 at 12:36 PM
Let us follow this Progressive logic and implement a Modest Proposal of my own. We should abort unborn babies that are suspected of being gay.
Blue Collar Todd on May 13, 2009 at 12:27 PM
Or the “wrong” race.
bluelightbrigade on May 13, 2009 at 12:29 PM
—–
This is slippery slope strawman bullsh1t.
Dave Rywall on May 13, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Let’s see. Christians don’t “discover” that they were christians. The majority of christians don’t come from fugged-up backgrounds.
DethMetalCookieMonst on May 13, 2009 at 12:37 PM
I hear you all on the problems. I’m just telling you what I know.
This abortion thing is even important to my Catholic friends. Seriously.
It’s just become a “line in the dirt” deal for a lot of women.
AnninCA on May 13, 2009 at 12:38 PM
FIFY
DethMetalCookieMonst on May 13, 2009 at 12:38 PM
May I make a Modest Proposal that we follow this enlightened Progressive logic and abort gay unborn babies as well?
Blue Collar Todd on May 13, 2009 at 12:39 PM
Those who would abort based on sex also wind up with a dead little girl who was killed because she is a girl. How in the world is that not a state issue?
Pavel on May 13, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Sounds like a hate crime to me. Call the Congressinoal police.
faol on May 13, 2009 at 12:39 PM
It’s official.
I hate Europe.
bluelightbrigade on May 13, 2009 at 12:18 PM
——
Such strong, strong words that won’t be backed up with any action, rendering them pointless.
Dave Rywall on May 13, 2009 at 12:40 PM
How do you know? I bet he’ll forego that last tango in Paris.
Shy Guy on May 13, 2009 at 12:41 PM
If it’s so moronic then explain how most gays just happen to “discover” they are gay after having really bad stuff happen to them.
My wife’s cousin “discovered” she was a lesbian after being raped by a mentally disabled male patient of hers.
DethMetalCookieMonst on May 13, 2009 at 12:41 PM
Yeah, I think that’s something most of us could pass up on…
Upstater85 on May 13, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Well, do you want to meet my strawman son? He’s a 10% strawman. Only 1 in 10 like him are allowed to be born here in the U.S.
You can choose not to believe what is coming with advances in prenatal testing, but my son is living proof that your fooling only yourself.
caygeon on May 13, 2009 at 12:42 PM
If Palin came out with a cogent pro-choice?
I think she’d sweep.
AnninCA on May 13, 2009 at 12:43 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »