Selective Abortions: They're Happening in Canada

[jacee]

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.

It will create other complications, imo.

.

[BC_chick]

It will create other complications, imo.

.

No more than banning them, which, if I understand correctly, is what you're suggesting.

If there is a history of gender-based diseases in the family, I could see it as relevant, but otherwise what other complications are you thinking?

[waldo]

My previous post is deleted

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

no - in the context of a medical procedure, there are medical professional guidelines. The pointed focus typically brought forward by pro-life advocates relates to so-called 'late-term' abortions (that 0.4% of the total number of abortions that associate with fetal impairment and/or health risk to the mother).

.

[BC_chick]

no - in the context of a medical procedure, there are medical professional guidelines. The pointed focus typically brought forward by pro-life advocates relates to so-called 'late-term' abortions (that 0.4% of the total number of abortions that associate with fetal impairment and/or health risk to the mother).

.

Context, Waldo. Jacee was under the impression that sex-select abortions are illegal in Canada and I let her know that they're not. We have no laws whatsoever about abortion up to 20 weeks.

As I stated previously ultrasounds generally predict sex around mid second trimester or at the very earliest early second trimester indicating that sex-select abortions are generally being conducted at *minimum* after 14 weeks or more generally around 18-20 weeks.

[waldo]

Context, Waldo. Jacee was under the impression that sex-select abortions are illegal in Canada and I let her know that they're not. We have no laws whatsoever about abortion up to 20 weeks.

As I stated previously ultrasounds generally predict sex around mid second trimester or at the very earliest early second trimester indicating that sex-select abortions are generally being conducted at *minimum* after 14 weeks or more generally around 18-20 weeks.

Canada has no abortion laws - whatsoever, regardless of gestation periods... and it would appear no requirement exists to change this and shift regulation outside/beyond the medical community vis-a-vis a medical procedure. It was MLW member kimmy who earlier highlighted the current ratio number within Canada:

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.

that 1.05 ratio for Canada fits within the "biologically normal sex ratio at birth which ranges from 102 to 106 males per 100 female"

perhaps the definitive account from the UN World Health Organization (dated 2011):

Preventing gender-biased sex selection: an inter-agency statement OHCHR, UNFPA, UNICEF, UN Women and WHO

.

[BC_chick]

Canada has no abortion laws - whatsoever, regardless of gestation periods... and it would appear no requirement exists to change this and shift regulation outside/beyond the medical community vis-a-vis a medical procedure. It was MLW member kimmy who earlier highlighted the current ratio number within Canada:

that 1.05 ratio for Canada fits within the "biologically normal sex ratio at birth which ranges from 102 to 106 males per 100 female"

perhaps the definitive account from the UN World Health Organization (dated 2011):

Preventing gender-biased sex selection: an inter-agency statement OHCHR, UNFPA, UNICEF, UN Women and WHO

.

I'm familiar with existing laws and as I said to Jacee, I'm opposed to changing abortion laws.

I'm in favour of the medical community adopting an ethical approach to the situation by not revealing the sex of the baby before 20 weeks.

[waldo]

I'm familiar with existing laws and as I said to Jacee, I'm opposed to changing abortion laws.

I'm in favour of the medical community adopting an ethical approach to the situation by not revealing the sex of the baby before 20 weeks.

and if data is the determiner, it would appear the current sex-ratio for Canada fits within a 'biologically normal' categorization - yes?

.

[BC_chick]

and if data is the determiner, it would appear the current sex-ratio for Canada fits within a 'biologically normal' categorization - yes?

.

So we continue a nonchalant approach to misogynist female feticide just because it's not a 'big enough' problem?

Exactly what are the benefits of knowing a baby's sex before 20 weeks for it to outweigh the negative repercussions of possible female feticide? That's perhaps a better question.

[The_Squid]

So we continue a nonchalant approach to misogynist female feticide just because it's not a 'big enough' problem?

Exactly what are the benefits of knowing a baby's sex before 20 weeks for it to outweigh the negative repercussions of possible female feticide? That's perhaps a better question.

80% of the population lives within 100km of the border. They will go south and have an ultrasound. This restriction would do nothing.

[BC_chick]

80% of the population lives within 100km of the border. They will go south and have an ultrasound. This restriction would do nothing.

Who cares, I already said several times to let them find other means. I'm not for changing abortion laws nor am I naive enough to think we could ever get rid of this - I'm just in favour of not facilitating it and by default making the process more difficult from an ethical perspective.

I asked Waldo and I ask you. Exactly what are the benefits of knowing a baby's sex before 20 weeks for it to outweigh the negative repercussions of possible female feticide?

ETA - Exemptions could be made for special-cases of course where the gender could have an impact on the baby or mother's health, but as a general rule, to not allow it. What exactly is the harm in that?

Edited April 15, 2016 by BC_chick

[waldo]

I asked Waldo and I ask you. Exactly what are the benefits of knowing a baby's sex before 20 weeks for it to outweigh the negative repercussions of possible female feticide?

per the WHO document I just linked... without particular direct regard/relevance to Canada:

The tradition of patrilineal inheritance in many societies coupled with a reliance on boys to provide economic support, to ensure security in old age and to perform death rites are part of a set of social norms that place greater value on sons than daughters. In addition, a general trend towards declining family size, occasionally fostered by stringent policies restricting the number of children people are allowed to have, is reinforcing a deeply rooted preference for male offspring. As a result, women are often under immense family and societal pressure to produce sons. Failure to do so may lead to consequences that include violence, rejection by the marital family or even death. Women may have to continue becoming pregnant until a boy is born, thus putting their health and their life at risk.

Sex selection can take place before a pregnancy is established, during pregnancy through prenatal sex detection and selective abortion, or following birth through infanticide or child neglect. Sex selection is sometimes used for family balancing purposes but far more typically occurs because of a systematic preference for boys.

.

[overthere]

Who cares, I already said several times to let them find other means. I'm not for changing abortion laws nor am I naive enough to think we could ever get rid of this - I'm just in favour of not facilitating it and by default making the process more difficult from an ethical perspective.

I asked Waldo and I ask you. Exactly what are the benefits of knowing a baby's sex before 20 weeks for it to outweigh the negative repercussions of possible female feticide?

ETA - Exemptions could be made for special-cases of course where the gender could have an impact on the baby or mother's health, but as a general rule, to not allow it. What exactly is the harm in that?

"feticide"???

A favoured term with hardcore prolifers btw......You know, rhymes with homicide and suicide and matricide and.....all the modes of human death.

Here is the harm in what you propose. Prolifers cannot gain any traction in Canada largely because there is no 'law' permitting or denying abortions in Canada. There are no rules codified, no legal conditions under which abortions may occur, no requirement for an ultrasound tech to reveal or not reveal the sex of a fetus.

Contrast with the US, which has had an endless, relentless stream of regulation, laws, rules, procedures and codes associated with abortion. The issue in in front of courts at all levels and in all jurisdictions forever. Abortion litigation is quite literally an indiustry in the US.

When you pump the tires of regulation here and succeed, you provide a crack in the formerly impervious shield of the non-law that has enabled abortion on demand in Canada, with virtually no litigation in Canada . There is no law, thus there are no lawsuits. And you can absolutely bet your ass that prolifers will exploit that wee crack to the absolute maximum of their well funded souls.

That is why. Why do you wish to enable the prolife lobby?

[BC_chick]

per the WHO document I just linked... without particular direct regard/relevance to Canada:

.

Fair argument, but having read up on the subject, this is a very simplistic and anti-man view of the issue. The truth is, this is a cultural issue in which Indian women themselves see baby girls as a huge financial burden.

And if they have to make a dozen babies before having a baby boy, then that's their problem. Maybe it would make the whole lot think twice about such a backward attitude about women's lives.

[BC_chick]

"feticide"???

A favoured term with hardcore prolifers btw......You know, rhymes with homicide and suicide and matricide and.....all the modes of human death.

Here is the harm in what you propose. Prolifers cannot gain any traction in Canada largely because there is no 'law' permitting or denying abortions in Canada. There are no rules codified, no legal conditions under which abortions may occur, no requirement for an ultrasound tech to reveal or not reveal the sex of a fetus.

Contrast with the US, which has had an endless, relentless stream of regulation, laws, rules, procedures and codes associated with abortion. The issue in in front of courts at all levels and in all jurisdictions forever. Abortion litigation is quite literally an indiustry in the US.

When you pump the tires of regulation here and succeed, you provide a crack in the formerly impervious shield of the non-law that has enabled abortion on demand in Canada, with virtually no litigation in Canada . There is no law, thus there are no lawsuits. And you can absolutely bet your ass that prolifers will exploit that wee crack to the absolute maximum of their well funded souls.

That is why. Why do you wish to enable the prolife lobby?

I have not proposed making any changes to abortion laws. No medical questions, no wait period or providing a reason, nothing of the sort that can be compared to what you see in the US.

I have proposed that the field of medicine does not reveal the gender of the baby until the period of 20 weeks when the abortion on demand period has passed.

Many private providers already do this, I'm just advocating a more general approach to it.

[cybercoma]

Canada has no abortion laws - whatsoever, regardless of gestation periods...

.

You're right, but be careful. The Morgentaler decision actually mentioned that the courts would likely support laws that become more restrictive with gestational length. So the door is open to "reasonable limits." Subsequent parliaments have decided to leave it up to the medical community to police itself. That doesn't, however, mean that there will never be gestational limits. Wilson's decision also doesn't meant the current SCC would support her decision about section 1 either. But anyway, you're right. Current there's no laws or restrictions.

[cybercoma]

per the WHO document I just linked... without particular direct regard/relevance to Canada:.

The irony being of course that men are the ones who determine the child's biological sex, not women.