Arizona House approves abortion restriction

[superfan1]

PHOENIX - With only two Republicans opposed, the state House voted Monday to make it illegal for doctors to perform an abortion if they know the mother's reason is gender or race selection.

Comments

[teleens_journal]

This.

On one hand, I feel it's horrible to limit abortion in ANY way. On the other, limiting this sort of eugenics seems like a good idea in theory.

The problem is, how the heck will any doctor ever KNOW that the reason for the abortion is one of those two things? It seems like 'The Patriot Act' or other similar legislation that sounds good on the surface (i.e. it has a catchy title or good 'hook'), but in reality it's only purpose is to limit rights.

So I guess I know how I feel about this after all - I'd be in favor of it if I thought that they actually gave a shit about women or minorities, but since by their behavior they've actively demonstrated in too many ways to count that they don't, I'm going to say that this bill and those who support it can go fuck themselves.

[nikoel]

The real bottom line here and in all abortion debates IMO is why do you want to force a woman to give birth to a child she doesn't want? Sure, there's a chance she'll come around and love it anwyay, but there's also a chance she'll abuse it.

[teleens_journal]

Well, the 'logic' there is that the woman could give it up for adoption...

OT - is your icon gankable?

[carmy_w]

IKR?
News to me!

Other countries, maybe, but I really doubt that in America, gender is a reason for an abortion, with a single possible exception of a fatal or chronic sex-linked genetic abnormality. In which case, I wouldn't want to put my child through the misery of being born, only to suffer and die.
I can't see how race would come into it at all-if she knows it is her egg, and she knows who's sperm, one would assume she knows what race the fetus is going to be....
The only exception I can see is for rape, or possibly for a mistake at an in-vitro center.
For two of the three possible exceptions(that I can think of), how can they defend banning it????

[thecityofdis]

1) Yes, sex-selective abortions do happen in the U.S., and there have been several articles about it here on this comm in the past.

2) Not every woman may know who the father is.

[carmy_w]

I stand corrected on both counts.

Not a reason to tell the woman no, however.

[whatisurdamage]

Wait... what? Is gender/race selection that big of an epidemic?

[cyranothe2nd]

No. It's just a way to vilify women seeing abortions.

[whatisurdamage]

Just ANOTHER way, I think you mean :(

These people are so ridiculous.

[xochitl]

i'd like to see what he's doing for the innocent, already-born children.

[carmy_w]

Um-she's.

Which makes me even madder at her statement.

[xochitl]

whoops, typo. But yeah.

[firerosearien]

So, I'd like to say I'm pro-choice, but does saying that I don't think abortion should ever be used because you don't like the gender of your kid mean I can't call myself pro-choice?

[nightcamedown]

Personally, I think it's possible to say that you don't think anyone should ever have an abortion and still call yourself pro-choice, so long as you support the legal right of other women to make that choice for themselves.

[thecityofdis]

And that's where I fall, personally, but... I have a huge, huge problem with sex-selective abortion. I don't know how to reconcile that.

[psychababble]

I fall in the "I don't think that anyone should have an abortion unless their life is at risk but then again I'm not going to tell anyone what to do with her body" camp...

I make my priest go -_- *facepalm* when we go 'round on this.