Strollerderby

Don’t like Your Baby’s Gender? Sweden Rules 'Gender-Based' Abortion Legal

Posted by Cole Gamble

Now, according to a Swedish medical ruling, if a mother or couple discover the gender of their baby and decide “that’s not what we were hoping for” they can get an abortion on that basis.

Here’s how it broke down. A Swedish mother of two girls requested two abortions in a row after learning the gender of her fetus. It became apparent to doctors her decision to abort was based on the discovery of gender, which obviously was not the one she was aiming for. Doctors at Mälaren Hospital expressed concern and asked Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare to draw up guidelines on how to handle requests in the future in which they "feel pressured to examine the fetus’s gender" without having a medically compelling reason to do so.

The board found such requests cannot be refused, and neither can abortions, thus medical staff cannot refuse to perform an abortion based on gender.

Now the idea of isolating a “gay” gene in fetuses and therefore “eliminating” it has been bandied about by rather tacky political pundits. But before we get to that moral maelstrom, pick-and-choose baby gender is already here. Sure, the day when doctors can fudge your baby’s DNA to increase the probability of a boy or girl is possibly coming sooner than later, but for now, if you don’t like what you got, scrap it and start again.

Does this already happen discreetly in America? I can’t imagine anyone would ever openly admit to their doctor or otherwise that they want to abort the baby because “I really had my heart set on a girl” but that doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. Do you think this is more common that people are admitting?

 

More Stuff:

Creepy Old Japanese Pregnant Dolls (with Attached Creepy Fetus Dolls!)

8 "PG" Movies Way Too Scary for Kids

6 Reasons Why it Sucks to Be a Kid Today

Disturbing Baby-Swinging PSA

Dumb Kiddy Product Makeovers

Eating Your Baby's Placenta

10 Great Books For (Traumatizing) Children

 

 


+ DIGG + STUMBLE

Comments

 

diera said:

Personally I think there's something wrong with someone who wants a specific boy or girl that much, but - if they really do want it that much, maybe it's better for them to have an abortion and try again rather than have, say, four unwanted baby girls before they finally have their wanted baby boy.

May 14, 2009 1:16 PM
 

lazydoer said:

can you imagine the number of abortions that the octo-mom would have to endure if she had wanted eight boys, or eight girls?

May 15, 2009 8:12 AM
 

Mrs Embers said:

Disgusting. Nothing like promoting gendsr-based discrimination before birth!

"Oh, darling, we wanted to have an only-child little boy like you SO bad that we aborted two female fetuses before you came along. Now you go on out there and respect women, you hear? There's a good boy..."

May 15, 2009 8:32 AM
 

ChiLaura said:

Okay, first off, "SEX", not "GENDER"? Why can't people understand this basic distinction?

This is unbelievable. Rather, I wish that it were unbelievable, but it's not. If a woman has "the right to choose", why doesn't she have the right to choose everything? I mean, good God, can you imagine the psychological burden of caring an unwanted fetus of unwanted sex? Horrifying!

I'm sure this does happen in the States and will become more common. Did you know that people come to the States just for sex-selective embryo implantation, as we have no guidelines, but their countries do? There's no move to regulate the fertility industry, so all you embryos? You're on your own.

May 15, 2009 9:07 AM
 

km said:

But what if she was aborting the child because she knew a boy-child would have a horribly debilitating disease?  According to the original article, the mom requested genetic testing, and at the same time asked to find out the sex of the baby.  Apparently she proceeded to have an abortion, which the doctors felt (but did not know) was based upon the supposed sex of the fetus.  

As long as abortion is legal, there is no reason for anyone to know why the abortion is performed.

May 15, 2009 12:23 PM
 

cgpunker said:

Really, that headline is misleading.  What the court ruled is that physicians can't refuse someone treatment just because they may not like their alleged reasons.  Like it or not, because people have the right to choose they sometimes make bad decisions (in somebody else's opinion). That's the way it is.  You can't be everyone's nanny.

May 15, 2009 3:51 PM
 

Mom of 6 said:

If you believe abortion to be a perfectly acceptable thing to do to the miniature human inside you, then the reason is a non issue. To say one reason is "better" than another is ridiculous, save for imminent demise of the mother, as in an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy. There's no difference between "I wanted a girl instead of a boy" and "Next year would be better than now".

I had 4 boys before I finally got my 2 girls. I hope the above contributor was joking when she said something about a psychological burden. They were my children and my responsibility from the moment of conception. It's bad enough that some deny the responsibility to/for their child, but even worse to try to say that someone else is "worse" than they are for voluntarily aborting for a different reason.

May 15, 2009 4:04 PM
 

ChiLaura said:

Mom of 6:

I was definitely being over-the-top sarcastic with my comment about the "psychological burden" of carrying a child of unwanted sex. My point was that a woman's "right to choose" abortion is a pretty slippery slope down toward choosing to abort for reasons like sex, sexual orientation, eye color, etc. As soon as our society says that a woman has a right to choose, a whole host of issues that make abortion uglier than it already is are opened up. Like you, I believe that abortion should only be allowed in cases of danger to mother's life.

I pregnant with our third, having already had 2 boys. We may end up having as many as 6 kids anyway, but I'm hoping that I "get" my girl before numbers 4 and 5! =)

May 15, 2009 5:17 PM
 

Great-grandmother said:

My immediate family (from my line) of 3 generations is only composed of 6 people.  Large families are no longer necessary if we want to preserve the human species.  Anyone contemplating more than "replacement" births is not doing anyone else any favors.

That said, I support pro-choice, but abortion used for frivolous reasons like gender is abhorrent.

May 16, 2009 4:54 AM
 

Emmy said:

This is sick and just wrong, aborting based on gender, what has our world come to, It's like saying oh, I just wanted another boy, and decided to have an abortion, since it was a girl, and it makes our world less interesting, its the beauty of nature that we don't get to decide the gender, well, I hope that this policy in Sweden eventually gets overturned, so immorally wrong, shouldn't every child get a chance at life, and how is our decision to decide whether they do or not?

May 16, 2009 11:16 AM
 

plaidsportcoat said:

Doctors can already fudge if they really want to--they can tell the people the baby is the sex they want - then they will have to live with it. Once they see it, hardly any would actually let the baby go to adoption.

May 17, 2009 5:01 PM

About Cole Gamble

Cole Gamble’s writings on the crimes of Willy Wonka, man-eating beds and tales from his cringe-worthy life appear here on Babble, the humor site Cracked, The Daily Beast, The Huffington Post and Salon. He is working on a book entitled, Conquer Everything! A Self Help Book to Destroy All Other Self Help Books and Grant You Mastery in Everything.

in

GROUP BLOGS

  • Strollerderby

    The smartest, funniest, most exhaustive parenting blog in the blogosphere.
  • Droolicious

    Modern design for modern parents.
  • FameCrawler

    Your daily baby celebrity fix.
back to blog homepage