Selective Abortions: They're Happening in Canada

[Wilber]

You are likely correct Ovethere, but. On demand abortion is one thing but should it include the right to demand someone else pay for it, no matter what the reason? The SC has ruled out laws restricting abortion as a Charter violation so that is a non starter, but that doesn't mean we have to sanction a practice by knowingly financing it.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Wilber

[overthere]

You are likely correct Ovethere, but. On demand abortion is one thing but should it include the right to demand someone else pay for it, no matter what the reason? The SC has ruled out laws restricting abortion as a Charter violation so that is a non starter, but that doesn't mean we have to sanction a practice by knowingly financing it.

Once again, defunding abortion runs into a 'unintended consequences' situation. The SC rulings have noted that abortion is a medical procedure. which means that for the most part each province has a choice to list or delist it as procedure that they fund. It is a crucial definition. Though voluntary, reproductive choice is considered to have consequences far beyond the 30 minutes and $400. It is not analagous to other 'voluntary ' procedures. For example, vasectomies are covered in AB, vasectomy reversals are not. Breast reductions are covered, breast enhancements are not.

The choice of all provinces to fnd or not fund is theirs, but they have all chosen to pay. This does not necessarily signify that every government in province in every era supports abortion or more correctly the right to choose. But to defund this medical procedure introduces some very serious unintended consequences. If you defund, that means that abortions are only available to those that can afford it. That does not exclude Ijndo-Canadian selective abortions, they'll just buy what they want. It does exclude the poor from getting an abortion at all.

An option is to introduce means tests, but that again has unintended consequences. Does it violate the Canada Health Act , which requires universal access to medically necessary services? I know- different provinces have different services listed, but this one has been clearly defined by the SC. What if a province starts to means test people seeking abortions, and only funds those for poor people? Aside from the same problem with the SC, and the Canada Health Act, it can easil;y become a slippery slope of means testing all health related diseases, injuries and activities. Is that what we want?

[Wilber]

Once again, defunding abortion runs into a 'unintended consequences' situation. The SC rulings have noted that abortion is a medical procedure. which means that for the most part each province has a choice to list or delist it as procedure that they fund. It is a crucial definition. Though voluntary, reproductive choice is considered to have consequences far beyond the 30 minutes and $400. It is not analagous to other 'voluntary ' procedures. For example, vasectomies are covered in AB, vasectomy reversals are not. Breast reductions are covered, breast enhancements are not.

The choice of all provinces to fnd or not fund is theirs, but they have all chosen to pay. This does not necessarily signify that every government in province in every era supports abortion or more correctly the right to choose. But to defund this medical procedure introduces some very serious unintended consequences. If you defund, that means that abortions are only available to those that can afford it. That does not exclude Ijndo-Canadian selective abortions, they'll just buy what they want. It does exclude the poor from getting an abortion at all.

An option is to introduce means tests, but that again has unintended consequences. Does it violate the Canada Health Act , which requires universal access to medically necessary services? I know- different provinces have different services listed, but this one has been clearly defined by the SC. What if a province starts to means test people seeking abortions, and only funds those for poor people? Aside from the same problem with the SC, and the Canada Health Act, it can easil;y become a slippery slope of means testing all health related diseases, injuries and activities. Is that what we want?

Again, I am not advocating preventing the poor or anyone else from getting an abortion. Having an abortion just because the fetus is female is not medically necessary, nor is it ethical and it should not be funded by the public system. Let them buy what they want because I am outraged that I have to pay for a procedure that puts no value on a female's life.

[overthere]

Again, I am not advocating preventing the poor or anyone else from getting an abortion. Having an abortion just because the fetus is female is not medically necessary, nor is it ethical and it should not be funded by the public system. Let them buy what they want because I am outraged that I have to pay for a procedure that puts no value on a female's life.

It is one of those daily compromises we all make in the enjoyment of what we have in this society.

Some think that the obese should be cut off all health care.

[Boges]

Some think that the obese should be cut off all health care.

A lot of people think smokers should.

[cybercoma]

And smarter people understand that those people don't live as long and actually end up costing less in the long run. Doubly so when you consider doctors don't diagnose fat people appropriately and usually just tell them to lose weight no matter what the problem is. Pretty off topic though.

Edited April 14, 2016 by cybercoma

[overthere]

And smarter people understand that those people don't live as long and actually end up costing less in the long run. Doubly so when you consider doctors don't diagnose fat people appropriately and usually just tell them to lose weight no matter what the problem is. Pretty off topic though.

It is not off topic, it was an example of where the abortion argument is headed if you apply means tests, or deny an abortion based on ethnicity..

Fat people and smokers don't really cost more or less. The fatties seek attention when their hearts and lungs start to fail. Smokers seek attention when that persistent cough comes up bloody and they get diagnosed with cancer.

Just like everybody else that doesn't eat too much or smoke, smokers and fatties get 95% of the total health care obtained in their lives- in the last two years of life. Its just that they get it a bit earlier, and they weren't getting any maintenance anyway, so the overall cost is not much greater if any greater.

[The_Squid]

You are likely correct Ovethere, but. On demand abortion is one thing but should it include the right to demand someone else pay for it, no matter what the reason?

Having an abortion just because the fetus is female is not medically necessary, nor is it ethical and it should not be funded by the public system. Let them buy what they want because I am outraged that I have to pay for a procedure that puts no value on a female's life.

How do you enforce the reasons? You haven't mentioned any viable way to do so. Maybe start by answering my question from earlier...

So non-medical reasons shouldn't be funded.... OK.... Let's go with that...

What if the woman says "I don't like the health risks associated with being pregnant"?

Is that a valid medical reason?

[Wilber]

It is one of those daily compromises we all make in the enjoyment of what we have in this society.

Some think that the obese should be cut off all health care.

I'm astonished you would make that comparison and that you consider aborting a fetus merely because it is female to be "health care". I guess I am out of touch with modern morality, what it is willing to justify in the name of inclusiveness and maintains that because a consequence was unintended, it doesn't need to be dealt with.

[Wilber]

How do you enforce the reasons? You haven't mentioned any viable way to do so. Maybe start by answering my question from earlier...

I did and others have responded as well. You could start by simply asking them but you wouldn't even to that.

[The_Squid]

I did and others have responded as well. You could start by simply asking them but you wouldn't even to that.

Asking them... so when they say "health reasons" then do we step it up to a lie detector test? Snitch line? You are completely unrealistic in how this would be enforced.

How does a government bureaucrat determine the reasons for an abortion, other than a wild ass guess, so they can be billed for improper reasons?

And you didn't answer the question about whether the health risks of being pregnant are reason enough for you...

[Wilber]

Asking them... so when they say "health reasons" then do we step it up to a lie detector test? Snitch line? You are completely unrealistic in how this would be enforced.

How does a government bureaucrat determine the reasons for an abortion, other than a wild ass guess, so they can be billed for improper reasons?

And you didn't answer the question about whether the health risks of being pregnant are reason enough for you...

And you say, what health reasons? Do you just pay people without asking why?

[Bonam]

The discussion comes to this for me: you cannot have it both ways.....

Our culture has concluded and the majority of Canadians believe that abortion on demand is the right of a woman. The reasons for that demand are not restricted by ethnicity. This right is defined and enabled by the legal stance(Supreme Court) that abortion is a medical procedure, which leads to public funding of the procedure.

At the same time, our federal govt has for decades promoted and enabled a policy of multiculturalism, whereby we accept many(but not all) of the cultural practices of immigrant groups. We also specifically exclude some practices such as genital mutilation, tribal facial scarring of children, and honour killings.

This is an example of a culturally accepted mulitcultural practice running head on into the right of a woman to control her body/reproductive activity.. It is a classic example of 'unintended consequences'.

The fetus has no rights , because it is not considered a human in Canadian law. With our background of tolerance for pretty much any cultural practice that does not harm humans, how then can we exclude gender selective abortions. How would anybody even know that the abortion is gender selective?

It is nominally an irreconcilable situation. You cannot legislate different rules for uteri depending on the origin of the uterus. The options are to ban all abortions, or do nothing. The first is impossible, the second has a probable outcome that will limit the problem.

The outcome stems from the reality that immigrants are- with certainty and at differing rates- assimilated into our social democratic system. In 20 years there will be several thousand more young men than young women in the Indo-Canadian ethnic group. The majority will be heterosexuals, the majority will be seeing mates. That means they will be obliged to seek those mates outside their won community, due to a serious shortfall in eligible women. Where will they find them? Two sources, and the first is the traditional arranged marriage with women they have never met from India. The second is with Canadian women from other ethnicities. I have no doubt that in increasing numbers the second choice, other ethnicities, will easily prevail. These boys are born and raised here, and the influence of a lifetime of being Canadian first and Indian second will win out. And once they marry outside their community, or even inside it, the practice of selective abortion dies a quick death. Of course, the practice will be sustained somewhat by new Indian immigrants, but it is equally true that times are changing in India too.

This is all well and good except that it fails to consider demographic changes as a result of immigration and practices such as sex-selective abortions. If you bring in enough people which perform sex-selective abortions, you will end up with a population which consists of too many males and too few females. This kind of population imbalance results in significant social problems as men realize that their prospects for ever finding a mate are slim, often resulting in human trafficking, criminality, etc.

But you're right, restricting laws regarding abortion is not the answer. Instead, we should be looking at why we are bringing over people who carry out these kinds of "cultural practices" to begin with. Can we really not find anyone better to bring in?

[Big Guy]

I think you have the full right to force a woman from getting an abortion and taking the baby to full term - if you are ready to look after that child for the rest of its life.

[Wilber]

I think you have the full right to force a woman from getting an abortion and taking the baby to full term - if you are ready to look after that child for the rest of its life.

You guys don't listen. No you don't, the Supreme court ruled otherwise. The issue here is who should pay for abortions which are done simply because people don't want a female child.

[Guest]

You guys don't listen. No you don't, the Supreme court ruled otherwise. The issue here is who should pay for abortions which are done simply because people don't want a female child.

I really don't have an opinion on who should pay. I would be okay with means testing. Just so long as they are allowed.

That said, if the state is going to pay for them, the reason for the choice shouldn't enter into it. It shouldn't even come up.

[Wilber]

I really don't have an opinion on who should pay. I would be okay with means testing. Just so long as they are allowed.

That said, if the state is going to pay for them, the reason for the choice shouldn't enter into it. It shouldn't even come up.

That is where we disagree. Means testing should nothing to do with it, the reason should. To be a bit crass. I think we would all agree that breast surgery should be paid for by the public system for things like if it is reconstructive, or if it is reduction surgery because a woman is so well endowed that it presents a real problem for her. On the other hand, if she just wants bigger tits, she can pay for it herself. I see abortion for the purpose of gender selection in the same light as just wanting bigger tits.

[Guest]

That is where we disagree. Means testing should nothing to do with it, the reason should. To be a bit crass. I think we would all agree that breast surgery should be paid for by the public system for things like if it is reconstructive, or if it is reduction surgery because a woman is so well endowed that it presents a real problem for her. On the other hand, if she just wants bigger tits, she can pay for it herself. I see abortion for the purpose of gender selection in the same light as just wanting bigger tits.

I don't mean to be flippant, but what else would you not pay for? What if it's someone's third abortion, because the pill makes her sick, and, well, you know he just won't wear a condom? What if there's a 25% chance of MS? 10%? What if the kid has Down Syndrome? What if the mother just fell out with father, the jerk?

If a woman wants an abortion, and can't afford it, the state should pay. The state should not know the reason. If, at some level of income, a woman has to pay, I don't care.

[WestCoastRunner]

I really don't have an opinion on who should pay. I would be okay with means testing. Just so long as they are allowed.

That said, if the state is going to pay for them, the reason for the choice shouldn't enter into it. It shouldn't even come up.

Any woman in BC can visit an abortion clinic in Vancouver and get an abortion, no questions asked (within a reasonable # of weeks). Why would we want to change that? Let's not fix something that isn't broke. There is no means testing and there shouldn't be.

[Guest]

Any woman in BC can visit an abortion clinic in Vancouver and get an abortion, no questions asked (within a reasonable # of weeks). Why would we want to change that? Let's not fix something that isn't broke. There is no means testing and there shouldn't be.

Yeah, like I said, I don't have an opinion.

[Wilber]

I don't mean to be flippant, but what else would you not pay for? What if it's someone's third abortion, because the pill makes her sick, and, well, you know he just won't wear a condom? What if there's a 25% chance of MS? 10%? What if the kid has Down Syndrome? What if the mother just fell out with father, the jerk?

If a woman wants an abortion, and can't afford it, the state should pay. The state should not know the reason. If, at some level of income, a woman has to pay, I don't care.

Well what else are you willing to pay for, is there no limit? You know damn well this isn't the subject of this topic so don't keep dragging in straw men. Edited April 15, 2016 by Wilber

[Guest]

Well what else are you willing to pay for, is there no limit?

For an abortion? No, I can't think of one. But then, I don't believe in asking why she wants one.

[jacee]

I think you have the full right to force a woman from getting an abortion and taking the baby to full term - if you are ready to look after that child for the rest of its life.

You cannot force a woman to carry a baby to term.

.

[Wilber]

Any woman in BC can visit an abortion clinic in Vancouver and get an abortion, no questions asked (within a reasonable # of weeks). Why would we want to change that? Let's not fix something that isn't broke. There is no means testing and there shouldn't be.

Well if women don't care if other women have abortions just because they don't want little girls, and the state should pay for them, I guess I don't know why I should. I'll just leave it at that.

[Wilber]

You cannot force a woman to carry a baby to term.

.

WTF are you talking about, the Supreme Court has already said that. There are tons of medical procedures the state doesn't pay for, that doesn't mean you can't have them.