mind? And it seems the fashion in which the authors presented the argument is not widely accepted; you can see how much rejections the article has received. You are clearly assuming that your standard is the only legitimate one and your assumption is certainly being proven to be wrong. Winton Charminster Putting the extreme controver5sy to one side, this is a very poor paper. Poorly argued. Full stop. Take just one line from the paper: "Now, hardly can a newborn be said to have aims" What an absurd claim! Newborns have an incredibly powerful aim to survive. Everything they do shows their aim to survive. I am struggling to take this paper seriously, and the editors really need to take a good look at themselves. Very poor quality. DEEKAYBEE The irony of your defense of the paper and the hoi polloi reaction does not seem obvious to you. This qualifies you for a grant of a seeing eye dog. Oh and ponder this, what is the distance between what the paper argues and parents in some cultures selectively getting rid of girls because they will be a burden as compared to boys? IMO the difference is in the definition of burden. I've read the article, and am deeply troubled by it. I consider myself socially and politically very liberal, and would consider myself in favour of women having the right to abortion -- on whatever terms that women deem appropriate. By way of background, I'm a doctor in Australia with