So it seems that the Canadian Medical Association is getting a bit squeamish over the issue of gender abortion – particularly when it has to do with females.
Doctors are being urged to withhold gender information from pregnant women until 30 weeks gestation, when it is supposedly “more difficult to get an abortion unless there’s a medical reason”.
And where are the feminists on this? Well it looks as if they are supporting the pregnant female’s unfettered right to have an abortion rather than the unborn female whose life is prematurely ended because she lacks the all-important Y chromosome and related genitalia.
Abortion Rights Coaltion of Canada executive director Joyce Arthur explains:
“We’re pro-choice not because we love abortion, but because women have the right to decide what’s best for their own lives for their own reasons, and we don’t have to agree with those reasons.”
Nothing may interfere with a woman’s sacred right to play God.
The National Post Editorial Board has posted an internal discussion on this issue. A couple of paragraphs are noteworthy:
Chris Selley: The Canadian Medical Association Journal editorial that led to the discussion of aborting fetuses based on their sex has a great, if bizarre, opener: “When Asians migrated to Western countries they brought welcome recipes for curries and dim sum.” And an unwelcome recipe for baby murder, apparently.
I understand the argument from a professional standpoint: Doctors are facilitating something they believe is unethical by providing information about the unborn baby’s gender, and they can’t just go around not giving the information to certain people. But it highlights a central absurdity in the abortion debate: How can people be completely at ease with abortions performed for reasons unknown, or for no reason at all, but freak out at abortions performed on grounds of gender? Is it our business or isn’t it?
Marni Soupcoff: I agree. Why is it not OK to abort a child because she’s female, but perfectly acceptable to abort a child because he or she has Down Syndrome? Now, obviously there are many reasons people could have for wanting a male or not wanting a child with Down Syndrome. When it’s personal, up to them, fine. But if it starts becoming a societal statement about who deserves protection, then it seems unfair to draw the line at gender. Either the fetus has rights or not. If not, then sorry, no “good” reason is necessary for an abortion. If yes, it gets complex.
Perhaps MP Stephen Woodworth is right. It may indeed be time for us to have that discussion.
And I suppose a related issue is do we want our precious health care dollars being spent this way?
* * * *
Related
Female feticide can be seen as part of the phenomenon of culturally-driven violence against women (especially southasian). Aruna Papp has long been raising the red flag on this growing problem. [H/T Jerry Agar)
In Texas, an abortion comes with a heartbeat - National Post
Apparently BC is already refusing gender disclosal until 20 weeks according to the Post:
Dr. Shelly Ross, an obstetrician and international liaison for the FMWC, said it is not likely the policy would have any effect on the practice of feticide.
"The rules, at least in B.C., are that we don't tell them for 20 weeks," Dr. Ross said. "But I find that in this modern day and age, if we say, 'No, we're not going to tell you,' [the patients] will go out to the private [doctor] and find out themselves.”
And for the Record, The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada does not appear to be in agreement with the CMAJ on this one:
“Examination of the fetal genitalia is a recognized part of the routine second-trimester obstetric ultrasound,” the society said in an emailed statement. “Providing patients with results of diagnostic imaging procedures is part of the Canadian standard of care, and fetal sex determination and disclosure should not be exempt.
“Therefore, the (society) believes it is the right of the patient to be informed of the gender of their fetus, and that this information should not be withheld.”
The professional organization also said Kale fails to acknowledge cultural values that lead some people to seek pregnancy termination based on the sex of the fetus and does not take into account biochemical testing products that can give expectant parents a highly accurate fetal sex determination as early as eight weeks into pregnancy.
“The (society) in no way condones pregnancy termination based on non-medical reasons, such as the gender of the fetus. The (society) feels strongly that it is the cultural values and norms in specific segments of the Canadian population that must change to ensure that females are not confronted with procedures and intolerant environments before or after they are born.”
Er, doesn’t that last bit sound like they’re referring to the unborn female as a human being, or even a *gasp* a person???
Deselecting and selecting our children – Margaret Somervillle
Sex-selective abortion – Brian Lilley. Please read to the end. Brian asks some very compelling questions.
I have never believed that my “rights” trump anyone else’s right to exist.
Is it not ironic that the gender that feels their “rights” trump a child’s that should be in the safest place on earth, are now most at risk?
The free standing abortion clinics are very profitable I remember reading they brought in a million a year for each clinic.
That is worth it seems an order of Canada medal.
A baby is not a disease, why abortion on demand from our tax dollars, I have to wait 2 years for a hip or knee replacement.
A year for a MRI ?
There is great difficulty in having a rational discussion here.
That Chretain could blather on about abortions and the death penalty in the same sentence is chilling.
Liberal values EH?
As for society values the liberal mindset is hopelessly skewed, until of course you look at their record of keeping promises.
OT but this is the face of the third party.
They will expedite any policy that gets them votes.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/17/chris-selley-its-a-perilous-and-political-road-from-evidence-to-policy/
There should be no funding for gender testing of any kind at any stage, there is no legitimate reason to know the the sex of the unborn. Ditto for the overuse of ultrasounds in uncomplicated pregnancies.
It’s amazing the human race has survived to this time given we had no such interference in the gestational period.
Bill Kelly is talking about this subject now.
Ah never mind. That segment’s over now. Margaret Somerville had been on, and mentioned the subject of Abortion Tourism in Canada. Rather a chilling thought.
I saw that clip Joanne. I was pleased to see her frank statements of the facts. Hopefully more will follow her example to shine a bright light on this practice.
Well, the infant mortality rate has not been a straight line on the graph.
What to do?
Petition your local health boards and Prov health Ministers.
Make that line in the sand at 20 weeks deeper.
That makes sense.
I am pleased to see the media party has decided to shine a light on this issue.
Over 30 years ago I was working in Labour and Delivery. One of the female Obstetricians from Pakistan had 3 sons. The gossip was she had just aborted her 4th pregnancy because she found out she was carrying a female. We felt revulsion but the medical community turned a blind eye.
This discussion is long overdue.
That’s even more heinous!
Selley is right (I guess it happens).
please someone nominate Jo’s Blog for best BEST political blog for 2011
I don’t have the computer skills
Great Blog
fh
sorry I guess voting is in round two
I am not familiar with most of the blogs
so I will not vote
fh
Ah thanks Fh and no worries. What’s really important is the little family we have here, right?
What a tangled web we weave when we practise to deceive.
Look at the knots we contort ourselves into now that we accept abortion, on pretty much any grounds. Now, the CMAJ is twisting itself into a pretzel to try and save female children in the womb because of new Canadians’ seeming preference for male children.
Back when the Liberals legalized abortion, one knew abortion on demand would create all sorts of untold moral dilemmas, because abortion on demand, in and of itself, is questionable. Well, to be frank, abortion itself is immoral: It always ends in the death of the child in the womb and puts the future physical and psychological health of the aborting woman at risk.
Having no clear moral grounds on which to prohibit abortion in our brave new world, it’s going to be a hard sell by the CMAJ to limit a woman’s access to information which will tell her whether the child she is carrying is male or female, the criteria on which she decides either, yes, an abortion, or, no, no abortion.
By imposing a 30-week limit to access to information re the sex of one’s child, I see only later-term abortions happening, as there are always abortion doctors willing to perform the procedure for cash on demand.
Perhaps the provinces can defund abortion in an effort to cut costs, still allow it, but pay for it on your own dime. Bet a lot more babies would be born.
There are a lot of things that could be cut, like gender modification, high paid foreign consultants, and all plastic surgery for vanity reasons only.
Yeah I would think that abortions that aren’t medically necessary could be cut. McGuinty cut eye exams from public funding several years ago. I still can’t believe he did that.
Joanne: “I still can’t believe he did that.”
Me neither. As though eye care — and dental care, which the government doesn’t cover either– is less important than women’s access to government-subsidized abortions. And then we wonder why our economy’s crumbling, why unemployment’s up, why school’s are closing, and why so many people are desensitized and becoming less and less civil.
Crassly put — but it’s true — having children creates jobs. Having lots of children creates lots of jobs. Governments today don’t like to connect the dots, however, and radical feminists are firmly resisting connecting the dots. Government subsidies of abortion-on-demand have created a demographic summer and the parents of the children we do have can’t get decent eye or dental care.
Where are our priorities? McGuilty’s are definitely in the trash bin.
‘Make that “Government subsidies of abortion-on-demand have created a demographic winter …”
Good column from Barbara Kay in the NP today: “Too controversial to question”.
Great article! Link here.
More physical risks of abortion here (for the woman).
Here too.
REAL Women’s position on the 30-week limit:
“Women Building a Better Society”
January 17, 2012
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FEMALES BY WAY OF GENDER BASED ABORTIONS
The Canadian Medical Association Journal (January 16th, 2012) has identified a problem that is occurring in Canada due to abortions based on gender. The editorial recommends a direct ban or restrictions on the disclosure of medically irrelevant information such as the gender of the child, to pregnant women until after about 30 weeks of pregnancy, at which time far fewer abortions are performed.
This problem was previously identified by Statistics Canada in 2006 when it reported that abortions for gender reasons were being performed in several areas in Canada highly populated by immigrants.
Cultures from some countries traditionally desire to preserve the bloodlines through the male offspring, and it is this preference that now seems to be in effect in certain areas in Canada.
There is currently no distinction under Canadian abortion law between abortions performed for medical reasons and abortions performed for any other reason. That is, under our current federal abortion law, there is no prohibition of abortion on the grounds of the gender of the child.
The loss of females by way of sex selection abortions devalues all women and their contributions to society in the past, present and the future. The availability of such abortions can result in family pressure on women to have an abortion –which is unacceptable bullying that can traumatize such women.
REAL Women of Canada has been alarmed for some time about abortions based on gender, in Canada. In June 2006 we wrote to all provincial and territorial Ministers of Health requesting that they look into this matter and regulate the ultra-sound procedures to prohibit the disclosure of a child’s gender prior to birth, so as to preclude abortions being performed for gender reasons.
REAL Women of Canada therefore endorses the recommendation in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, especially since the sex of the child in the womb is medically irrelevant information (except when managing rare sex-linked illnesses) and does not affect care.
Although women may seek gender information from other private sources, or use other medical techniques to determine the sex of the child, this requires time, effort and money. In contrast, the ultra-sound procedure is now carried out on a regular basis under provincial health services in pre-natal care in Canada, and is the most common source of information on the child’s gender. Consequently to prohibit the disclosure of the gender until after 30 weeks will save the lives of a number of females.
Equality between the sexes and the prohibition of discrimination against females, applies throughout the entire life span. What do other rights matter if the child is not allowed to be born, simply because she is of the female gender?
[end of press release]
Also, a very good Canadian resource concerning the aftereffects of abortion on women’s health:
http://www.deveber.org/summary-womens-health-after-abortion