Why would a cheaper technology lead to an increase in abortions? Don't they just kill the fetus anyway upon realization of the sex if it's undesirable?
Wouldn't it ultimately be safer for the mother, to perform a very early term abortion if that's what she wants, rather than waiting?
If a mother wants to abort at 60 days pregnant (assuming the new tech enables earlier sex identification), why shouldn't she be allowed to for any reason she deems worthy?
Because in countries where this is a problem it's common to have extreme restrictions on use of ultrasound machines. For example requiring two doctors to be present to use it and banning gender identification uses.
If this device is cheap/small enough that illegal clinics could have it, it would make gender identification much more widely available then it is now.
Selective abortion can be dangerous population-wise because even a small gender skew can be hugely problematic.
Not to start a flamewar, but it really isn't a tough call at all. It's just that you got trapped in this debate-framing message that abortions are about freedom.
You know another problem with legalized abortions? Women that sell them in exchange of suing for child support. [0]
Why would a cheaper technology lead to an increase in abortions? Don't they just kill the fetus anyway upon realization of the sex if it's undesirable?
Wouldn't it ultimately be safer for the mother, to perform a very early term abortion if that's what she wants, rather than waiting?
If a mother wants to abort at 60 days pregnant (assuming the new tech enables earlier sex identification), why shouldn't she be allowed to for any reason she deems worthy?