The fundamental problem with bioethics is the ethics of it. It is too ambiguous and subject to personal morality. It also assumes an intellectual superiority that I am uncomfortable with.

Rahul: Thanks for the link

Ink Spill: See Inky – I don’t understand the moral dilemma of it. Parents should have a right to know the nature of the foetus. However – who encourages – is it a policy to encourage – who adopted this policy – What does the law say about it? Why do doctors let their personal bias into the picture?

Tarun: True. What good bringing in a child who will not be loved, probably abused, not given enough to eat – especially given that the State cannot look after children anyway. Children do not belong to parents – and yet parents are the guardians. Maybe people should have to get a license to have a baby.

LAK: Thanks.

Shashi: By not extending the argument to female foeticide – the logic becomes ridiculous. Fathers also feel the emotional trauma of the loss. Parents may choose to look at the foetus as their child. I know of men who were broken by the loss of a child due to a miscarriage. However, emotional trauma isn’t the premise of the Right to Choose.

km: Actually km – I am saying that moral parameters don’t make sense. Because morality cannot be the foundation. I believe that the Right to Choose is fundamnetal – but the choices that a woman makes are reflective of the realities she lives in.

Wendigo: True. However adoption isn’t about choice always. For instance, if you have a female child already – you cannot adopt another female child. (Or has that law been changed?) Adoption is the highest form of choice – however, that choice is influenced by what the Social Worker thinks of you.

If a foetus can be aborted on account of health, why can’t a foetus be aborted on account of its gender? (I am not arguing in favor of the latter or the former, btw.)

Is the foetus’s health somehow a more valid parameter for abortion than gender? Rationality tells me the answer is yes. But again, that’s *my* rationality. Would it not be wrong to impose it on others?

Is there an equivalent of the Grand Unification Theory in Philosophy that can explain contradictory issues like euthanasia, abortion and reverence for life?

but extending this argument to female foeticide is ridiculos.