Boges Posted April 12, 2016 Report Share Posted April 12, 2016 (edited) http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/sex-selective-abortion-may-be-driving-boy-boom-among-indian-born-moms-in-canada-study TORONTO — A new study finds that Indian-born women in Canada with two or more children are giving birth to more baby boys than expected. And researchers suggest abortions related to sex selection may be a major reason. The study says Canadian-born women in Ontario gave birth to about 105 boys for every 100 girls between 1993 and 2012, consistent with the average in most of the world. But women who immigrated from India who already had two children gave birth to 138 boys for every 100 girls. If they already had three children, they give birth to 166 males for every 100 females. That ratio rises to 326 boys per 100 girls for Indian-born mothers with two daughters who had an abortion preceding her third birth. It was 409 boys for every 100 girls if the mother had more than one abortion. Lead author Marcelo Urquia of Toronto’s St. Michael’s Hospital says it’s illegal in Canada to use such technologies as in-vitro fertilization to select the sex of a fetus. But an ultrasound can show the baby’s sex at 14 weeks’ gestation, at which point a woman can choose to terminate the pregnancy. Urquia says because abortions are legal and covered by government health insurance, families with a preference for sons may be using the procedure to try to get a boy. The study was published Monday in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. So we're collectively cool with this right? If a woman has a right to choose she (even if heavily influenced by her husband and extended family) should be able to terminate a fetus that's female just to try again until they get a male. Of course we're also cool that the taxpayer picks up the tab for this kind of behaviour right? Should we determine motive before a person gets an abortion or is it an absolute right no matter what? Edited April 12, 2016 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydraboss Posted April 12, 2016 Report Share Posted April 12, 2016 Come on Boges...the minute these "Indian born women" set foot in this country they're Canadian. Therefore, this kind of thing must now be considered a "Canadian Value", right? NEVER question Canadian Values..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted April 12, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2016 Come on Boges...the minute these "Indian born women" set foot in this country they're Canadian. Therefore, this kind of thing must now be considered a "Canadian Value", right? NEVER question Canadian Values..... Sunny Ways Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 12, 2016 Report Share Posted April 12, 2016 Sunny Ways please provide a correlation for this post in regards your OP referenced study covering the years between 1990 and 2011 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 12, 2016 Report Share Posted April 12, 2016 Come on Boges...the minute these "Indian born women" set foot in this country they're Canadian. Therefore, this kind of thing must now be considered a "Canadian Value", right? NEVER question Canadian Values..... no - "foot setting" is not the criteria for Canadian citizenship. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted April 12, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2016 please provide a correlation for this post in regards your OP referenced study covering the years between 1990 and 2011 . There is none. It was a joke responding to Hydraboss' post that this behaviour is a "Canadian Value". Something our current PM seems proclaim he knows all about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 12, 2016 Report Share Posted April 12, 2016 There is none. It was a joke responding to Hydraboss' post that this behaviour is a "Canadian Value". Something our current PM seems proclaim he knows all about. joke? And here I thought your OP might have serious intent. You speak of "behaviour"... and earlier "motive" - do you have Conservative thought monitors/police at the ready? it seems the study doesn't extend beyond "foreign born mother"... doesn't distinguish to the point of permanent residency or Citizenship... you know, the respective qualifying points for acquiring provincial health coverage and having an abortion paid for under that coverage. That was your point, right... your concern about costs and, as you said, "taxpayers picking up the cost". I guess you'll need a more granular focused study, right? Will you be correcting your OP? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted April 12, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2016 (edited) joke? And here I thought your OP might have serious intent. You speak of "behaviour"... and earlier "motive" - do you have Conservative thought monitors/police at the ready? it seems the study doesn't extend beyond "foreign born mother"... doesn't distinguish to the point of permanent residency or Citizenship... you know, the respective qualifying points for acquiring provincial health coverage and having an abortion paid for under that coverage. That was your point, right... your concern about costs and, as you said, "taxpayers picking up the cost". I guess you'll need a more granular focused study, right? Will you be correcting your OP? . It was one of my points. I guess if it doesn't specify that these mothers were permanent residents that means none that received them were? Is it your position that none of the mothers that received an abortion based on gender did it with tax payer funding because the study doesn't specify if they were or not? I'm sure the truth is somewhere in the middle. But the main narrative of the OP speaks to the point that motive is irrelevant when deciding a woman's right to choose. My question is, are we cool with that as Canadians? Let's say they did pay for it, does it make it right then? Edited April 12, 2016 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 12, 2016 Report Share Posted April 12, 2016 introducing "motivation" as an abortion qualifier is a non-starter... even if you could presume to gauge it. Many will view such discussion as a precursor to impacting on legality. Some might ask you your motivation in questioning/pursuing... wait, just what is it you actually want here? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted April 12, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2016 (edited) introducing "motivation" as an abortion qualifier is a non-starter... even if you could presume to gauge it. Many will view such discussion as a precursor to impacting on legality. Some might ask you your motivation in questioning/pursuing... wait, just what is it you actually want here? . I think we're beyond "wanting" anything in regards to abortions rights. It seems any restrictions, even if meant to eliminate clearly unethical behaviour, is seen as an attack on a woman's right to choose. You could easily make a woman pay (if they qualify for OHIP of course) retroactively if they seek an abortion yet, only months later seek medical assistance for a pregnancy. But is even that too much for Canadians to stomach? I'm just gauging people's comfort level with this obviously immoral behaviour. Or do we even see it as immoral? Edited April 12, 2016 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 12, 2016 Report Share Posted April 12, 2016 I'm just gauging people's comfort level with this obviously immoral behaviour. Or do we even see it as immoral? when you speak of motivation... and now morality... and "people's view of either", again, ultimately what are you seeking and how might you presume to carry it through/forward? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted April 12, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2016 when you speak of motivation... and now morality... and "people's view of either", again, ultimately what are you seeking and how might you presume to carry it through/forward? . I'm just bringing this study forward and using as a starting point for debate. I asked a few questions and wondered what people thought. Personally I would like to see some restrictions to abortion. It shouldn't be an absolute right and motivation is a factor. But that seems like a political third rail in Canada even if the restrictions are reasonable attempts to avoid discrimination and abuse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted April 12, 2016 Report Share Posted April 12, 2016 ...even if the restrictions are reasonable attempts to avoid discrimination and abuse. Reasonable? It's reasonable to tell a woman she must remain pregnant even if she doesn't want to remain pregnant? Think of the most idiotic, most deplorable reason possible to have an abortion. Whatever that reason is is reason enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted April 12, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2016 Reasonable? It's reasonable to tell a woman she must remain pregnant even if she doesn't want to remain pregnant? Think of the most idiotic, most deplorable reason possible to have an abortion. Whatever that reason is is reason enough. What about putting in place financial disincentives to abuse the system? We aren't talking about rape victims or even kids who put on a condom wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted April 12, 2016 Report Share Posted April 12, 2016 Reasonable? It's reasonable to tell a woman she must remain pregnant even if she doesn't want to remain pregnant? Think of the most idiotic, most deplorable reason possible to have an abortion. Whatever that reason is is reason enough. What about women who want to remain pregnant, only not with a girl? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted April 12, 2016 Report Share Posted April 12, 2016 ....... But the main narrative of the OP speaks to the point that motive is irrelevant when deciding a woman's right to choose. My question is, are we cool with that as Canadians? Let's say they did pay for it, does it make it right then? I'm not cool with someone believing that a fetus does not deserve to be born because it's female. What kind of people are so dismissive and misogynist that they would abort because they give so little value to women whom they obviously hold in very low regard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted April 12, 2016 Report Share Posted April 12, 2016 I'm not cool with someone believing that a fetus does not deserve to be born because it's female. What kind of people are so dismissive and misogynist that they would abort because they give so little value to women whom they obviously hold in very low regard. What kind of people use concern for females as a precursor to hand the rights of women to make reproductive decisions over to government womb-police? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted April 12, 2016 Report Share Posted April 12, 2016 I'm not cool with someone believing that a fetus does not deserve to be born because it's female. What kind of people are so dismissive and misogynist that they would abort because they give so little value to women whom they obviously hold in very low regard. Let's say it was illegal.... How would it be enforced? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted April 12, 2016 Report Share Posted April 12, 2016 Let's say it was illegal.... How would it be enforced? The only way I see it stopping is to not tell parents the sex of the fetus until after say, 5 months. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2539648/Thousands-girls-aborted-gender-Study-finds-couples-cultures-sons-deemed-desirable-terminating-female-pregnancies.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted April 12, 2016 Report Share Posted April 12, 2016 If I start to make decisions on how other people are allowed to use their bodies then I have to accept that other people have the right to make decisions on how I use mine. I am not going to let others decide for me so I will stay out of others business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 12, 2016 Report Share Posted April 12, 2016 I'm just bringing this study forward and using as a starting point for debate. I asked a few questions and wondered what people thought. Personally I would like to see some restrictions to abortion. It shouldn't be an absolute right and motivation is a factor. But that seems like a political third rail in Canada even if the restrictions are reasonable attempts to avoid discrimination and abuse. clearly you want restrictions, but how do you go forward with it? Women will just lie about their reasons, if you're going to police motivations. At the end of the day, someone who doesn't want to be pregnant will find a way not to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 12, 2016 Report Share Posted April 12, 2016 What about putting in place financial disincentives to abuse the system? We aren't talking about rape victims or even kids who put on a condom wrong. So now punish the poor for not wanting a kid when they decide they can't afford to care for it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted April 12, 2016 Report Share Posted April 12, 2016 What about putting in place financial disincentives to abuse the system? We aren't talking about rape victims or even kids who put on a condom wrong. I know. We are talking about people who wish to end their pregnancy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted April 12, 2016 Report Share Posted April 12, 2016 What about women who want to remain pregnant, only not with a girl? What about it? They wish to end their pregnancy they get to end their pregnancy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted April 12, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2016 What about it? They wish to end their pregnancy they get to end their pregnancy. Only to get pregnant again right away, rinse and repeat until they get a Y chromosome. How is that a good use of the healthcare system? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.