The implications are obvious:
Every mother knows that newborns are social creatures just hours after birth. They prefer to look at faces over objects, and they even imitate facial expressions. Now a study sug gests that the propensity for social interactions exists in the womb. Twins begin interacting as early as the 14th week of gestation….
“The womb is probably a crucial starting point to develop a sense of self and a sense of others.”
[From Social before Birth: Twins First Interact with Each Other as Fetuses: Scientific American]
January 12th, 2011 | 11:46 am | #1
Couple with three sons abort twin boys conceived with IVF – and they will try again for a girl as their first daughter died.
Excerpts:
A married couple who aborted twin boys the wife was expecting after IVF treatment have gone to court to choose the sex of their next child – because they want a girl.
The husband and wife already have three sons and said they now want to have a girl after their baby daughter died soon after birth.
They are both aged in their 30s and have taken their case to a legal tribunal after an independent medical body known as the Patient Review Panel rejected their bid to choose the gender of their next child using IVF.
The couple said they had made the decision to terminate the twin boys but could not continue to have unlimited numbers of children.
The unidentified woman conceived her three boys naturally and said she loves her sons but would do anything to have a daughter.
The husband said sex selection should be determined on a case-by-case basis.
He said:’Girls will go and get abortions and terminate when they know it’s not the right sex. That’s the reality.
‘We think it’s our right to have a chance to do it. It’s ridiculous that sex selection is illegal, actually.’
And one of the country’s IVF pioneers said he agreed the couple should be allowed to chose the sex of their next baby.
Professor Gab Kovacs said: “I can’t see how it could possibly harm anyone.”
January 13th, 2011 | 11:03 am | #2
“Twins begin interacting as early as the 14th week of gestation….”
I wonder what Esau and Jacob interacted about? Maybe, who was going to be born first?
Thanks for the post. Another true thing that shows how horrible and henious abortion is.
January 13th, 2011 | 5:50 pm | #3
“The implications are obvious”
Count on the “pro-choice” crowd to deny the obvious.
January 14th, 2011 | 2:33 pm | #4
I cut and pasted a part of this story for this Sunday’s bulletin. It goes well with the cover which has a picture of a fetus in the womb (we get our bulletins from CPH). Because of its secular orientation, the source, Scientific American, gives extra weight to the facts.
January 14th, 2011 | 10:31 pm | #5
In the western world, it’s becoming far more vogue to have girls than boys. Sex selection will diminish one sex or the other, given that trends make one sex more popular than another. It should stay exactly as it is in Victoria: only on the grounds of avoiding genetic conditions.
January 16th, 2011 | 1:14 pm | #6
No being has the right to use another’s body as a life support system if the other does not wish it. I do not understand why people spend so much time debating how “alive” or “human” a fetus is. Whether you think of a fetus as a human or a potential human or a future human, they still do not have the right to use another’s body against the other’s will.
January 16th, 2011 | 1:28 pm | #7
Lina, I would be interested to hear from you where you derive this theory of rights from. Is it your private opinion, or does it have an objective, rational foundation? How does it address the situation in which the dependent person is there by reason of the other’s actions? How does it deal with newborns who use their mothers’ bodies as their only source of nourishment? Is the newborn really any less dependent on others’ bodies for “life support”? And if this is against the mother’s will, does your theory not imply that the mother could discard her 2-month-old? Is that what you want us to conclude? If not, then how does your principle prevent that conclusion?
January 16th, 2011 | 1:38 pm | #8
Further, does this theory of rights have any associated theory of responsibilities attached to it? Do you think it’s wise for society to operate on a basis of rights dissociated from responsibilities? Does the adult who brought the young human into existence have no responsibilities toward that young human?
January 18th, 2011 | 11:58 am | #9
“No being has the right to use another’s body as a life support system if the other does not wish it. I do not understand why people spend so much time debating how “alive” or “human” a fetus is. Whether you think of a fetus as a human or a potential human or a future human, they still do not have the right to use another’s body against the other’s will.”
One of the most disgusting and the most deplorable comments that I have read on this blog from someone who professes to follow Christ.
“Satan, get thee behind me!”
January 20th, 2011 | 7:10 am | #10
Lina, you could also argue that no one has the right to bring another person into this world against their will. It’s not the baby’s fault that he was conceived. People are responsible for the consequences of their actions, and one of the primary consequences of sex is conception.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact