Withholding sex of fetus could curb 'female feticide' in Canada: doctor

this is one of those tough issues for me. i try to keep a pro-choice stance, but what really is the difference if the sex is known?
what is the difference between abortion due to sex and/or aborting due to race, deformaties or a handful of other reasons?

source

Dr. Rajendra Kale calls it the most severe and repugnant form of discrimination against females — and he wants to see it stopped.
The practice of aborting a female fetus after the parents learn the sex of their developing child through ultrasound is not as widespread in Canada as in such countries as India and China, where a cultural and often religious preference for boys has led to the estimated destruction of millions of females in the womb.

But Dr. Kale says smaller numbers in Canada, estimated in the thousands, are no reason to ignore such gender-based violence.

“Female feticide devalues women completely,” said Dr. Kale, interim editor-in-chief of the Canadian Medical Association Journal. He wants to see doctors withhold information about the sex of a child in the womb until 30 weeks' gestation to prevent “an unquestioned abortion” because parents prefer a boy.

Dr. Kale said research in Canada has found the strongest evidence of fetal sex selection among some Canadians of Asian descent, including people from India, China, Korea, Vietnam and the Philippines.

“What this means is that many couples who have two daughters and no son selectively get rid of female fetuses until they can ensure that their third-born child is a boy,” he writes, while stressing that not all Asian-Canadians condone nor engage in the practice.

In an editorial in Monday's issue of the CMAJ, entitled “It's a girl — could be a death sentence,” Dr. Kale puts the onus squarely on the medical community to try to halt sex-based abortion.

He calls on the provincial colleges that regulate physicians to rule that health-care professionals should not reveal a baby's sex to any woman before 30 weeks of pregnancy.

Again, Mr. Confusion writing in here.

I thought the pro-choice position was "It's my body, I can do whatever I want with it, and you should keep your rules off my body."

If that's the case, what logical argument is there for objecting to the practice of aborting girls until you get a boy? Can't you abort for any reason? I would think you could then abort if the child is too large, because that would make for a more painful delivery. Shouldn't the mother decide if the reason for the abortion is a good one, not somebody else?

I'm not arguing right or wrong, just thinking about the logic of the argument.

In a way, to be pro-choice is to be for liberty...

There are many reasons to want an abortion, the sex seems to be a factor for some people.
I do understand that it's something very superficial to have an abortion compared to a rape or a deficient fetus but I might as well be pro-choice all the way because, who am I to put lines and limitations?

I think the number of girls being born surpasses the number of boys in the world, so it doesn't create something bad in the long run...

If it was me, of course I wouldn't abort for something like that and I don't see how women could be overally inferior than men.

reply to post by rubbertramp

this is one of those tough issues for me. i try to keep a pro-choice stance, but what really is the difference if the sex is known?
what is the difference between abortion due to sex and/or aborting due to race, deformaties or a handful of other reasons?

Because to abort just because of gender, is frowned upon in a country where boys and girls are of equal value. We have lots of immigrants from countries that don't have this same attitude.
We don't want this attitude in our country.

He calls on the provincial colleges that regulate physicians to rule that health-care professionals should not reveal a baby's sex to any woman before 30 weeks of pregnancy.

This is so that the mother cannot go to another country that allows late term abortions. Canada only does them up to 20 weeks, unless it's a danger to the mother for some reason. After 30 weeks, the baby can live outside the womb.

www.canadiansforchoice.ca...

The fact remains that nearly 90% of abortions in Canada take place before 13 weeks gestation

I never understood the whole "I only want to have a boy" thing. If the entire world was that way... Well, for lack of a better term it would be pretty gay.

I enjoy the company of women...

reply to post by charles1952

If that's the case, what logical argument is there for objecting to the practice of aborting girls until you get a boy? Can't you abort for any reason? I would think you could then abort if the child is too large, because that would make for a more painful delivery. Shouldn't the mother decide if the reason for the abortion is a good one, not somebody else?

Logical? How about the damage that could be caused to the uterus with someone having abortion after abortion. The woman would be having to switch doctors constantly, because a proper doctor does not do repeated abortions on one woman. They would rather recommend permanent birth control.

Even though Canada's doctors do abortions, this is not something to be taken lightly. It's a hard decision to make (or should be) and doctors want to know that it isn't taken lightly by the woman.

Maybe that's why birth control is very easy to get up here, at 16 a girl can get it without the consent of her parents.

reply to post by snowspirit

Dear snowspirit,

I hope you didn't misunderstand me, but I must admit I wasn't very clear. Please allow me to try it from a more straightforward point of view.

Abortion was fought for, and is currently defended, as an absolute right. Some rogue doctors, and mothers, go so far as to attempt abortions after birth. This is a very unusual "right" since it seems nothing must be allowed to stand in it's way. Even last trimester abortions are "acceptable" if the woman claims there will be damage to her emotional health from having to raise a baby.

The damage to the uterus, the damage to the woman's mental health after realizing her baby is dead at her hands, the damage caused to society by the cheapening of life, are all ignored in consideration of this "super right."

Choosing sex by abortion is, apparently, being seen by Doctors as crossing over some vague line. Their humanity is saying "Wait a minute, we've gone too far. This is much too casual and easy, something's really wrong. We're even willing to withhold medical information from a patient to stop this."

I think the first step is saying abortion is no longer a "super right." It has to be balanced by other considerations. My fear is that influential pro-choicers will forbid even a discussion of the subject. My hat is off to the OP for bringing this subject to light.

In the US, the waiting list for adoptions is at least two years. I think you can guess my position.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by boncho
I never understood the whole "I only want to have a boy" thing. If the entire world was that way... Well, for lack of a better term it would be pretty gay.

I enjoy the company of women...

there is actually a few examples of wanting only boys. the chinese 'one child' policy.
even here in the u.s., reading about the depression, i'd heard of this.
dirt poor farmers who were struggling only wanted one child to help. a boy was generally a stronger worker.

reply to post by charles1952

Abortion was fought for, and is currently defended, as an absolute right. Some rogue doctors, and mothers, go so far as to attempt abortions after birth. This is a very unusual "right" since it seems nothing must be allowed to stand in it's way. Even last trimester abortions are "acceptable" if the woman claims there will be damage to her emotional health from having to raise a baby.

I've heard about some late term abortions done in the US. Very sad.
Up here, it's been kept out of the politics for years, and it's up to the doctor and the patient. Also, we don't do late term abortions up here. Claims of "damage to a womans mental health" will only get her an adoption agency. Late term abortions, when a baby is viable outside of the womb, are illegal, unless it's truly a physical health danger to the mom, in such a case the baby would be delivered alive, if possible, and sent to an adoption agency.
Our abortions are done in hospitals instead of clinics, and we don't have "abortion doctors", we just have doctors that may or may not do abortions. They would refer the patient to someone else if they don't do them.

I think the first step is saying abortion is no longer a "super right." It has to be balanced by other considerations. My fear is that influential pro-choicers will forbid even a discussion of the subject. My hat is off to the OP for bringing this subject to light.

It should never be a "super right". There are medical implications, as well as whether or not it would be murder. Which it would be if the baby can live outside the womb.

There is a big difference in how the countries handle the medical. Our doctors get paid by the government, some from provincial, some from federal, not insurance providers. And we don't have an abundance of doctors because of this, they put caps on how many doctors can even get trained at a time.
Having a bit of a doctor shortage, it's likely harder to find doctors that would do something against the oath of preserving life.

Maybe because our medical is free for us, we've also been more accepting about certain limitations.

In the US, the waiting list for adoptions is at least two years. I think you can guess my position.

Ours is really long too, but it could be because of our easy access to birth control.
Or that we have a much smaller population

reply to post by snowspirit

I'm really impressed with your description of Canada's policies in this matter. I wish it were that way here. Both of my parents were born in Canada, maybe that will get me preferential treatment when I decide to immigrate.

With respect,
Charles1952

My question is: if these parents value a boy so much over a girl, to the point that they would kill her to make room for a boy, why would we WANT these people to be forced to have girls and then do who-knows-what to them? Are they suggesting that forcing these parents to birth girls is going to suddenly change their minds and they will love and value her once she's born? Or will the illicit sex trade simply get an influx of very young girls, even babies? Will the illicit slave trade get a boost? Will the state be inundated with foster cases of girls being abused and neglected?

I'm a parent, and can't understand why people harm their kids, but I do understand that forced sterilization is a much more slippery slope than allowing people to abort for whatever reasons they have. Forced adoption is the same. Let these people abort their girl babies, and if you believe in a G-d and afterlife, then be thankful they were spared the cruelties of this world and especially the family they were to be born in. Let them go instantly Home, and skip the lifetime of beatings, prostitution, etc.

reply to post by User8911


Actually...
China's Growing Problem Of Too Many Single Men

China will face a growing number of young men who will never marry due to the country’s one-child policy, which has resulted in a reported birth ratio of almost 120 boys for every 100 girls
…By 2030, projections suggest that more than 25% of Chinese men in their late 30s will never have married.

Now, imagine what's going to happen when they all grow up. Then what if the ones that do manage to find a wives keep having more boys?

Originally posted by oneinthesame
reply to post by User8911

 

Actually...
China's Growing Problem Of Too Many Single Men

China will face a growing number of young men who will never marry due to the country’s one-child policy, which has resulted in a reported birth ratio of almost 120 boys for every 100 girls
…By 2030, projections suggest that more than 25% of Chinese men in their late 30s will never have married.

Now, imagine what's going to happen when they all grow up. Then what if the ones that do manage to find a wives keep having more boys?

Then China's overpopulation problem will be solved for a while.

reply to post by 00nunya00


Maybe it will solve overpopulation. Then there will be millions of men in their middle and older age, no family (parents already dead, no siblings, no wife, no children). That will cause new problems.

China's population will eventually drop quickly (30 years or so). Lots of homes and factories will sit empty, causing real estate prices to plummet (supply and demand). That will grind the economy to a halt. People's wealth will shrink and those unattached ones will be very upset. Imagine having no family, no job, no future. Revolution?

Unfortunately that problem isn't just limited to China. Most Western countries now have a birthrate of below 2 children per female. That means that eventually all these countries populations will start to shrink. It should have already started happening, but for now immigration is filling in the gaps. When the number of Chinese (and other) immigrants shrink, Western populations will as well. That means more empty homes, lower real estate prices, less jobs, fewer young people. We will end up with a huge senior citizen population for a while, who will suffer the consequences of not enough working people paying taxes to keep their benefit checks coming. And then things will really get ugly.

Our society is set up to require that we have an ever increasing population. Otherwise what is the point in building more homes, schools, offices, etc? Without an expanding population almost everything in our economy is pointless.

DP

This is a clear example of things swinging back the other way. I mean, humanity seems to have this thing where they just can't be balanced. A wrong is committed (or has been endemic to humanity for millennia) -in this case restrictions on the freedom of women, or specifically, permissibility of abortion- so to correct it, people "swing too far the other way"- in this case give far too much freedom in relation to abortion.

I remember reading a while back how some countries had implemented a "we don't need a reason" policy- before the policy was put in place, women had to give some reason: it could be (and very often was) a fairly trivial reason, but it was a necessity for the abortion to be performed. So these countries finally did away with it.

I kinda disagreed with this, since..well, my position was always "pro-necessity". I can't go anywhere to a doctor and say "It is my choice, I'd like you to chop off my toe", why should we have wasted hospital and national resources for something like an unnecessary abortion?

Oh well...people figure out ways to abuse the system no matter what.

NB: I'd like to point out that while I still disagree with the usage of abortion in this situation, perhaps I am not so "hard" against the specific example given in the article in the OP. The article gives the example of couples who already HAVE 2 female children, and wish for a male one now. If they had no children and aborted the female I'd be totally against it, but the situation they described is a little different. If a family had 2 boys, wanted a daughter and found out they were about to have a 3rd son as well, while again, I wouldn't agree with abortion at all, it is a more understandable situation, and it is a bit unfair to compare it to China, where most people are ONLY allowed to have 1 child.