Selective Abortions: They're Happening in Canada

[cybercoma]

Who's talking about removing funding for abortion? We require a valid reason for any procedure we fund. It appears you believe gender selection is a valid reason to fund abortion, I do not. I guess it is just that simple.

The courts already decided who determines whether the abortion is valid or not. That's the person having it.

[Wilber]

The courts already decided who determines whether the abortion is valid or not. That's the person having it.

I get it, you won't give a personal opinion on whether this is right or wrong, you just hide behind whatever you can.

[WestCoastRunner]

I get it, you won't give a personal opinion on whether this is right or wrong, you just hide behind whatever you can.

You hide behind the bible.

[kimmy]

Who's talking about removing funding for abortion? We require a valid reason for any procedure we fund. It appears you believe gender selection is a valid reason to fund abortion, I do not. I guess it is just that simple.

I agree in principle with what you're saying... I just don't see a practical way to determine the specifics of the case.

Suppose you're a bureaucrat and you have an East Indian couple in front of you and you're trying to determine whether they want this abortion for purposes of gender selection, or for some other reason? They told you they've realized they just can't afford another child. Do you believe them? How can you determine otherwise?

Suppose you have a white couple in front of you. Same question. Does the ethnicity of the couple weigh into the decision?

Maybe the white couple already has 4 daughters and were trying one last time for a son, but they really can't afford another child. Does gender selection in their case seem any more sympathetic than for the woman-hating culture? Maybe the East Indian couple are dirt poor and can't actually afford a child regardless of gender... does their financial status make their claim more believable? Should it? Maybe they're totally in this for gender selection, and the fact that they're poor just makes their excuse more credible.

I mean, I totally understand why you feel this way... the idea that public healthcare dollars are being used to support misogynist cultural beliefs doesn't sit well with me either. I just don't see a practical response.

I just had a quick look and it looks like the ratio of male births to female births in Canada is 1.05 males per female, which I believe is very close to the natural rate mentioned in the opening post. So it seems like in the large picture, gender-selective abortion is perhaps not a big factor in Canada.

-k

[waldo]

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

.

at what point does the 'carry' become a baby?

.

[Wilber]

You hide behind the bible.

A am an agnostic who bends toward atheism. Religion has nothing to do with my opinion.

But I have learned something here. If women aren't concerned about the state paying so that they can be womb borne throw aways, mere collateral damage in the quest for a boy child, I don't know why I should let it bother me.

Edited April 15, 2016 by Wilber

[dre]

What are you saying then, that all women are liars if a doctor asks them why they want an abortion?

No, but very few (if any) women are going to tell their doctor they want an abortion because the fetus is female... especially if they knew that it would result in them being rejected for the procedure they want or denied funding.

This whole idea is rather pointless.

[jacee]

I agree in principle with what you're saying... I just don't see a practical way to determine the specifics of the case.

Suppose you're a bureaucrat and you have an East Indian couple in front of you and you're trying to determine whether they want this abortion for purposes of gender selection, or for some other reason?

No bureaucrat has the right to ask that question.

Doctors may, as part of their clinical responsibility to the patient and ethical responsibility.

Doctors who suspect that purpose might even refuse to refer women for hospital abortions.

Private clinics may not screen for that.

I mean, I totally understand why you feel this way... the idea that public healthcare dollars are being used to support misogynist cultural beliefs doesn't sit well with me either. I just don't see a practical response.

I just had a quick look and it looks like the ratio of male births to female births in Canada is 1.05 males per female, which I believe is very close to the natural rate mentioned in the opening post. So it seems like in the large picture, gender-selective abortion is perhaps not a big factor in Canada.

-k

In some it seems it is.

In particular, sccording to the report posted, among Indian women who immigrated to Canada after they already had two daughters.

Now I'm wondering ... would you find the same thing among all Canadians once they've had two daughters?

Don't know.

Edit to add ...

No.

The increased male:female ratio is specific to recently immigrated Indian families who already had two daughters.

151074-res-2-at.pdf

.

Edited April 15, 2016 by jacee

[cybercoma]

I get it, you won't give a personal opinion on whether this is right or wrong, you just hide behind whatever you can.

My opinion doesn't matter. That's what you don't get. The ONLY thing that matters is whether the person wants to be pregnant or not.

[Wilber]

I agree in principle with what you're saying... I just don't see a practical way to determine the specifics of the case.

Suppose you're a bureaucrat and you have an East Indian couple in front of you and you're trying to determine whether they want this abortion for purposes of gender selection, or for some other reason? They told you they've realized they just can't afford another child. Do you believe them? How can you determine otherwise?

Suppose you have a white couple in front of you. Same question. Does the ethnicity of the couple weigh into the decision?

Maybe the white couple already has 4 daughters and were trying one last time for a son, but they really can't afford another child. Does gender selection in their case seem any more sympathetic than for the woman-hating culture? Maybe the East Indian couple are dirt poor and can't actually afford a child regardless of gender... does their financial status make their claim more believable? Should it? Maybe they're totally in this for gender selection, and the fact that they're poor just makes their excuse more credible.

I mean, I totally understand why you feel this way... the idea that public healthcare dollars are being used to support misogynist cultural beliefs doesn't sit well with me either. I just don't see a practical response.

I just had a quick look and it looks like the ratio of male births to female births in Canada is 1.05 males per female, which I believe is very close to the natural rate mentioned in the opening post. So it seems like in the large picture, gender-selective abortion is perhaps not a big factor in Canada.

-k

I've never maintained that bureaucrats should be asking the questions but doctors certainly should.

We live in a society of entitlement when there are no guarantees at all. I would say to the couple with four daughters, be thankful you have four children, many can't have any or have lost children. My daughter in law comes from a family of four girls. You won't meet a nicer family and they wouldn't change a thing. Besides, if you can't afford another child, what difference does its sex make?

[BC_chick]

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.

Yes, up to 13 weeks, you can walk into any abortion clinic and get one, no questions asked. However, according to Canadian law, you can get an abortion up to 20 weeks as long as it's performed under proper clinical care (ie in a hospital).

I remember during my pregnancy that they could not (or in hindsight they would not) tell me the sex of my baby until well into the second trimester, around week 20. After this topic has come up, I researched and found out that some ultrasounds can determine sex as early as *14 weeks*.

That means at the very best case scenarios these abortions are being done early second trimester and at worst (if it took as long as it mine), toward the viability mark of 20 weeks when the fetus is quite developed.

I stand by my previously (very eloquently put) statement that aborting 20 week fetuses because they're female is f-ing disgusting. I don't care how pro choice you are, that's incomprehensible from a feminist perspective.

I think the best solution is to disallow revealing of the sex before 20 weeks and let them get their back alley ultrasounds if they want. And if they're assholes enough to self-abort after 20 weeks then let them deal with it.

Edited April 15, 2016 by BC_chick

[Wilber]

My opinion doesn't matter. That's what you don't get. The ONLY thing that matters is whether the person wants to be pregnant or not.

Yes, if you don't have an opinion, you don't matter.

[Guest]

Yes, if you don't have an opinion, you don't matter.

You don't matter if you do have an opinion either. Not when it comes to abortion, or lots of other things, for that matter.

[cybercoma]

I've never maintained that bureaucrats should be asking the questions but doctors certainly should.

Doctors don't get to decide whether a woman has to stay pregnant or not.

[cybercoma]

Yes, if you don't have an opinion, you don't matter.

If you do have an opinion it doesn't matter either. Why on earth should YOUR opinion matter as to whether or not a woman wants to be pregnant? It doesn't. It's her choice about what to do with her body. You don't get to harvest her organs and you don't get to force her to use her womb against her will either. Is sex selection a good reason? F*** no. It's disgusting. Those people are appalling. But at the end of the day, I don't get a day over how someone else's organs are used and neither do you.

[jacee]

Yes, if you don't have an opinion, you don't matter.

If you don't have a uterus, your opinion on a woman's pregnancy choices doesn't matter.

That's the law.

.

Edited April 15, 2016 by jacee

[Wilber]

If you don't have a uterus, your opinion doesn't matter.

That's the law.

.

Within some ethnic groups in this country, that obviously isn't true. But as I said, women are the victims in this practice so if you don't care, there is no reason I should. I'll leave now.

[BC_chick]

If you don't have a uterus, your opinion doesn't matter.

That's the law.

.

Even India has laws against sex-selective abortion. Sure, it doen't always work but at least it shows that as a nation, it's against the practice.

If abortion laws are completely lax up to 20 weeks in Canada, what's wrong with disallowing the revealing of the sex until that point?

They may end up doing what they want anyway, but as a nation we indicate that we are not nonchalant about female feticide.

[jacee]

Within some ethnic groups in this country, that obviously isn't true. But as I said, women are the victims in this practice so if you don't care, there is no reason I should. I'll leave now.

We all care, Wilbur.

You're just not knowledgeable about the way the law works and why.

Personally, I think that the fact that this research is done and out there being discussed may make a huge difference.

Social pressure is a huge motivator for change.

Edited to correct...

We can make sex-selective abortion illegal.

.

Edited April 15, 2016 by jacee

[overthere]

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.

I am noting that if you refuse to fund abortion because of a persons ethnicity, it is then reasonable to deny coverage for many other reasons: obesity, smoking or any self inflicted health situation . Universal coverage cannot also be selective coverage.

I did not address the morality. My opinion on the contents of a persons womb is none of my business and not relevant. .

Edited April 15, 2016 by overthere

[BC_chick]

*Deleted*

.

My previous post is deleted

I looked into this and it's 100% false. There are absolutely no restrictions whatsoever on abortion in Canada.

Edited April 15, 2016 by BC_chick

[jacee]

My previous post is deleted

I looked into this and it's 100% false. There are absolutely no restrictions whatsoever on abortion in Canada.

Thanks for clarifying. I'll delete mine too.

We can make that law.

.

[BC_chick]

Thanks for clarifying. I'll delete mine too.

We can make that law.

.

Apparently a Conservative MP tried to pass a motion condemning it (not even prohibiting) and that got struck down in 2013 so I don't think anything of the sort will be happening any time soon.

As I googled around, I realized that without having read it beforehand, my call to ban revealing the sex until 20 weeks has been voiced before by the medical community itself and many some private ultrasound practices already don't do it.

It seems like a very reasonable means to achieve this task without changing abortion laws.

[jacee]

Apparently a Conservative MP tried to pass a motion condemning it (not even prohibiting) and that got struck down in 2013 so I don't think anything of the sort will be happening any time soon.

As I googled around, I realized that without having read it beforehand, my call to ban revealing the sex until 20 weeks has been voiced before by the medical community itself and many some private ultrasound practices already don't do it.

It seems like a very reasonable means to achieve this task without changing abortion laws.

That's a broader brush, instead of a direct approach. It could get hung up in some other issues, like gender-specific inherited conditions where early abortion may be the best medical treatment.

If India can do it, we can do it.

We have the data now. We didn't then, and it would have seemed just like another ethnic attack by the Harper gov.

.

Edited April 15, 2016 by jacee

[BC_chick]

If India can do it, we can do it.

We have the data now. We didn't then, and it would have seemed just like another ethnic attack by the Harper gov.

.

I agree about Harper government facing more scrutiny with regards to anything to do with abortion.

Having said that, i don't think prohibiting is the answer. First, it's difficult to prove and second, it opens up the slippery slope of placing limits on abortion.

By banning the medical community of revealing the sex of the baby before 20 weeks, *by default* we prohibit sex-select abortions without encroaching or limiting existing laws on abortion.

As I said earlier, if they want to find their own ultrasounds, so be it. At least as a nation we take a stance that we are not tolerant about it.

Edited April 15, 2016 by BC_chick