Selective Abortions: They're Happening in Canada

[Wilber]

How do we determine the reason for an abortion so that we can put special restrictions on those particular abortions?

If there is no medical reason, maybe we should ask. Do you expect your government to pay for everything you ask for without asking why you want it.

[cybercoma]

If there is no medical reason, maybe we should ask. Do you expect your government to pay for everything you ask for without asking why you want it.

The reason is the person doesn't want to be pregnant.

[jacee]

If there is no medical reason, maybe we should ask. Do you expect your government to pay for everything you ask for without asking why you want it.

How did we get to "everything"?

I may not like some people's choices, may not make those choices myself, I may feel that an education campaign would be useful ... but I will still defend their right to choose.

.

[The_Squid]

If there is no medical reason, maybe we should ask. Do you expect your government to pay for everything you ask for without asking why you want it.

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?

Edited April 13, 2016 by The_Squid

[The_Squid]

Well for one, if someone is purposely getting pregnant getting an abortion and getting pregnant again, that's something that can easily be identified and dealt with a fine for wasting government resources.

"Purposely getting pregnant"

How do you propose the government bureaucrats determine this so they can send them the bill? Ask their friends? Neighbours? Maybe an abortion snitch line!

Seriously though... How would the government determine this?

[BC_chick]

"Purposely getting pregnant"

How do you propose the government bureaucrats determine this so they can send them the bill? Ask their friends? Neighbours? Maybe an abortion snitch line!

Seriously though... How would the government determine this?

Although there are most advanced methods, typical ultrasounds are incapable of indicating sex until 18-20 weeks. That just goes to show that these are later term abortions taking place which makes the whole thing pretty gross IMHO.

By then the fetus is 6-7 inches and quite developed. 24 weeks is considered viable if that tells you something.

I'm not necessarily supporting the idea that the government should do this, but come on, it's not that difficult if a person's record show that they continue to aborting fetuses after ultrasound results show that it's a girl.

[The_Squid]

... it's not that difficult if a person's record show that they continue to aborting fetuses after ultrasound results show that it's a girl.

They'll get an ultrasound somewhere else... next town over. Do they have private ultrasounds that aren't affiliated with the Provincial medical system, like private MRI clinics? They'll go there. Pass a law that says ultrasounds can't be released to the pregnant woman? She'll go to the USA.

I haven't heard any realistic ways that this could be enforced.

--------------------------

ETA: Your post wasn't really related to the post you quoted... I was responding to a poster that said "women who get pregnant on purpose"... my question was how would this be determined?

Edited April 13, 2016 by The_Squid

[Boges]

"Purposely getting pregnant"

How do you propose the government bureaucrats determine this so they can send them the bill? Ask their friends? Neighbours? Maybe an abortion snitch line!

Seriously though... How would the government determine this?

If the person that gets an pregnant and seeks pre-nadal treatment soon after receiving an abortion that was performed after the gender was disclosed, I think it's pretty safe that first pregnancy was intentional.

[Boges]

They'll get an ultrasound somewhere else... next town over. Do they have private ultrasounds that aren't affiliated with the Provincial medical system, like private MRI clinics? They'll go there. Pass a law that says ultrasounds can't be released to the pregnant woman? She'll go to the USA.

I haven't heard any realistic ways that this could be enforced.

We're talking about people using Provincial Health Insurance, that can be tracked no?

[jacee]

Although there are most advanced methods, typical ultrasounds are incapable of indicating sex until 18-20 weeks. That just goes to show that these are later term abortions taking place which makes the whole thing pretty gross IMHO.

By then the fetus is 6-7 inches and quite developed. 24 weeks is considered viable if that tells you something.

I'm not necessarily supporting the idea that the government should do this, but come on, it's not that difficult if a person's record show that they continue to aborting fetuses after ultrasound results show that it's a girl.

I don't believe 'the government' has access to that personal information, nor the right to act on it.

I do think that time and social stigma will eventually take care of this: There isn't the same 'status' associated with all-male families here ... especially when we suspect how it's happened.

.

[BC_chick]

They'll get an ultrasound somewhere else... next town over. Do they have private ultrasounds that aren't affiliated with the Provincial medical system, like private MRI clinics? They'll go there. Pass a law that says ultrasounds can't be released to the pregnant woman? She'll go to the USA.

I haven't heard any realistic ways that this could be enforced.

I agree and as I said earlier, if not that, they'll commit infanticide as they do in India if they really don't want a baby girl that badly.

I'm just responding to your question about the feasibility of determining whether the abortion was sex-selective or not. If someone wait until week 20 and suddenly decides to abort after the sex is revealed... it's a pretty good indication don't you think?

As for whether or not they should pay for it, then that's something I don't necessarily believe even though I don't disagree either from an ethical perspective.

Edited April 13, 2016 by BC_chick

[BC_chick]

I don't believe 'the government' has access to that personal information, nor the right to act on it.

I do think that time and social stigma will eventually take care of this: There isn't the same 'status' associated with all-male families here ... especially when we suspect how it's happened.

.

No but the doctors know and I would prefer to see more medical ethics approach to it. Then again, it could end up with worse scenarios if the girl is really that badly unwanted.

I don't know what the answer is, I just know that the idea of aborting nearly viable 20 week old fetus just because it's a girl is f-ing gross.

Edited April 13, 2016 by BC_chick

[The_Squid]

If the person that gets an pregnant and seeks pre-nadal treatment soon after receiving an abortion that was performed after the gender was disclosed, I think it's pretty safe that first pregnancy was intentional.

The government bureaucrat would be assuming (your words). "We're pretty sure she got pregnant on purpose.... send her a bill". That's arbitrary and no way to enforce something like what you're proposing.

Edited April 13, 2016 by The_Squid

[jacee]

No but the doctors know and I would prefer to see more medical ethics approach to it.

Agreed.

And public education too.

Social shunning, etc.

All are normal reactions.

I don't know what the answer is, I just know that the idea of aborting nearly viable 20 week old fetuses is because they're girls is f-ing gross.

Agreed.

I think this research reporting on the issue is a good step forward.

.

Edited April 13, 2016 by jacee

[Wilber]

The reason is the person doesn't want to be pregnant.

Why not?

[Wilber]

How did we get to "everything"?

I may not like some people's choices, may not make those choices myself, I may feel that an education campaign would be useful ... but I will still defend their right to choose.

.

I'm not questioning their right to choose.

[Hal 9000]

I wonder if the conversation would change if the headline was "Indian men forcing their wives into aborting female fetuses".

[Guest]

I wonder if the conversation would change if the headline was "Indian men forcing their wives into aborting female fetuses".

It certainly would. That would be illegal.

[jacee]

It certainly would. That would be illegal.

Proof?

.

[Wilber]

Proof?

Is that what you would call freedom to choose?

[Hal 9000]

It certainly would. That would be illegal.

OK, forcing is a strong word, lets just say "persuading". Because really, lets not kid ourselves, that's what's happening.

[Guest]

Proof?

.

Wouldn't it be assault? Whatever it is that you would tell the police if I forced you to have an abortion.

[Guest]

OK, forcing is a strong word, lets just say "persuading". Because really, lets not kid ourselves, that's what's happening.

I daresay it is. I wouldn't excuse women from certain cultures completely, though. It might well be a mutual choice.

Still, how would you go about finding that out?

[overthere]

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.

Edited April 14, 2016 by overthere

[The_Squid]

Well said Overthere.