House Debates Banning Sex-Selective Abortions

[Frodo]

House debates bill to ban sex-selective abortions

By Shannon Bream
Published May 30, 2012
FoxNews.com

House members launched into a contentious debate Wednesday over a bill that would ban abortions performed on the basis of gender-selection.
 
Though sex-selective abortions are typically thought of as a problem in countries like China, bill author Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said Democrats and Republicans in the House agree that sex-selection abortions are occurring in the United States.
 
"The people of this country are overwhelmingly for this bill, and liberals are going to have to make up their mind whether they are so committed to abortion on demand that they think that includes killing little girls because they are little girls," Franks said.
 
Under his proposal, physicians who perform sex-selective abortions would face heavy fines and up to five years in jail.
 
The House, after closing out debate late Wednesday afternoon, is expected to vote on the proposal Thursday. It needs a two-thirds majority to pass.
--------------------------------------------------------

Read more

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Yes (R)

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Laws like this haven't worked anywhere in the world they've been tried for a very simple reason:  You can always claim the abortion is because of something else. 

I would probably support it anyway just for the symbolism of it.

[Donerail]

Yes (L).

[Lief 🗽]

People should be able to have abortions for whatever reason they want.

[CatoMinor]

Lean yes. I really hate shoving my personal beliefs down the throats of others, but abortion where the life of the mother is not at stake is one instance where an exception is made.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

No (D)

[The Mikado]

It's interesting that the question "Do you support abortion on demand" or variants always polls more positively than "Do you support sex-selective abortion"  You'd think that sex-selective abortion is necessarily included under "all abortion."

Anyway, my answer is that abortion should be legal, and people always do legal things for both good and bad reasons.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Laws like this haven't worked anywhere in the world they've been tried for a very simple reason:  You can always claim the abortion is because of something else. 

I would probably support it anyway just for the symbolism of it.

True, altho if a ban on sex-selective abortions were focused on the abortionists, it would be possible to go after them if their ratio was too skewed.

I do have a question, does the bill also ban sex-selective in-vitro fertilizations and if not, why not?

[nclib]

No (D).

Once again, the GOP is trying to manipulate the situation. There are probably very few sex-selective abortions in the U.S., and the GOP is trying to use that concept as an excuse to go after abortion doctors.

[Person Man]

No....though this is very unfortunate, there is no way to combat this practice without making all abortions suspect. This law is so vague and so easy to use throughout pregnancy that a blanket that if challenged could have the ability to overturn Roe v. Wade.

[Free Palestine]

People should be able to have abortions for whatever reason they want.

[they don't love you like i love you]

As shua pointed out, this law is unenforceable and thus pointless even if it was a fundamentally good idea (which I'd argue it isn't, even if the thought behind it is fundamentally good, but not every "bad" thing should be criminalized.)

[k-onmmunist]

People should be able to have abortions for whatever reason they want.

[greenforest32]

I would oppose this ban.

Maybe you don't like the reason for it, but it's not our decision to make.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I highly doubt sex-selective abortion is a major problem in the US.

If it were, the best way to deal with it would be to make it illegal for the parents to know about the sex of the fetus before the time limit for abortions is reached.

[TJ in Oregon]

I don't really understand why people have such a burning dislike for this since many of them don't seem to care about killing the fetus for any other reason, not to mention this whole issue started after a sting, not someone who actually wanted to have a sex selective abortion. That's my two cents on it personally.

But I would certainly vote for the ban anyway. This "Moderate Hero" abortion stance is still preferable to the status quo and probably softens political support for abortion in general by some small marginal degree.

[All Along The Watchtower]

lol Trent Franks

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

How the hell do you enforce this?

[Supersonic]

I would support this, if only for the symbolism.

[Simfan34]

People should be able to have abortions for whatever reason they want.

Disgusting. This has my full support.

Gentlemen- when do you support a cutoff?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I highly doubt sex-selective abortion is a major problem in the US.

If it were, the best way to deal with it would be to make it illegal for the parents to know about the sex of the fetus before the time limit for abortions is reached.

That would require actually having a time limit for abortions.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This is a weirdly fascinating thread.

[Oakvale]

This is a stupid and obviously unenforcable idea. Of course I wouldn't support it.

[Lief 🗽]

People should be able to have abortions for whatever reason they want.

Disgusting. This has my full support.

Gentlemen- when do you support a cutoff?

I don't support murder, so at the point when you can take the fetus out of the womb and it survives, then I support a cutoff. But as long as it's somewhere between a clump of cells and a tiny little thing that looks like a lizard, you should be able to terminate it for whatever reason you want.