badgenome said:
I don't see why it would be any more or less immoral than abortion for any other reason. That is, if you think abortion is a valid way to exercise more control over reproductive choices, then it should be fine to abort a pregnancy based on the desire to have a particular sort of "designer" child. Why should some things be left up to fate and not others? This is something I've pondered recently in a somewhat different context when some feminists were decrying how sex selective abortions devalue girls. Well, first of all, in an economic sense it kind of does just the opposite as the demand for marriageable women eventually outstrips demand. But while there are obvious huge implications for a society that has more men than women, it's pretty tough to argue that selective abortions devalue certain types of babies while maintaining that abortion doesn't devalue life itself. |
That depends, however. Much of the pro-choice lobby still feels iffy on the actual matter of abortions, and see them more as a tool of last resort for an underpriveleged woman who cannot support more children, who are not eager to play fast and loose with potential human life but know that it's an important option to prevent long-term human misery, and these people would feel that gender-selective abortions would be trivializing this matter. So too, in that line of thought, would sexuality-selective abortions.

Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.







