Site Search

Custom Search

Monday, January 16, 2012

Consequences: when abortion-on-demand meets multiculturalism

The Canadian Medical Association’s Journal (CMAJ) published today a rather disturbing editorial, “It’s a girl!”—could be a death sentence. The editorial highlights one of the tragic consequences of the intersection of multiculturalism and abortion-on-demand.

The editorial points out that many in countries like India and China have a preference for having sons and, as a consequence, sometimes abort daughters simply to control their numbers. A practice referred to as “female feticide,” the termination of the life of a fetus within the womb on the grounds that its sex is female, is an evil that devalues women and should be curbed.

The solution, according to the CMAJ, is not to disclosure gender information to women until after about 30 weeks of pregnancy. Here’s an excerpt from the piece:

A pregnant woman being told the sex of the fetus at ultrasonography at a time when an unquestioned abortion is possible is the starting point of female feticide from a health care perspective. A woman has the right to medical information about herself that is available to a health care professional to provide advice and treatment. The sex of the fetus is medically irrelevant information (except when managing rare sex-linked illnesses) and does not affect care. Moreover, such information could in some instances facilitate female feticide. Therefore, doctors should be allowed to disclose this information only after about 30 weeks of pregnancy—in other words, when an unquestioned abortion is all but impossible.

In a nation like Canada where morality is pretty much left to individuals, is it really surprising that some will use unfettered access to fully funded abortion to discriminate against women in a most egregious fashion?

As repugnant as the practice of female feticide is to me, I am foursquare against withholding information about the gender the unborn from pregnant women, most of whom hold healthy, moral, Canadian attitudes regarding the equality of males and females.

This smacks of penalizing the majority of families because a few have barbaric practices. We don’t outlaw marriage because some immigrants practice polygamy—nor should we.

The editorial means well, I’m sure, but a better, more democratic solution needs to be found.

Please read the CMAJ’s editorial, it’s informative and deals with a very important social issue.

© 2012 Russell G. Campbell

6 comments — This is a moderated blog and comments will appear when approved. Please don’t resubmit if your comment doesn’t appear immediately, and please do not post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable.

  1. Part of the problem is that we in Canada are not allowed to have an adult conversation about abortion.

    Some political opportunists argue that any restrictions to abortion is the equivalent to misogyny.

    No one with any sense of humanity could possibly defend fully funded gender selective abortion. Incredibly though, they do; And many of them call themselves Catholic etc.

    Keep in mind inexpensive kits will eventually (if not available already)
    become widespread that will allow the gender of the fetus to be known early in a pregnancy anyways.

    Sooner or later, perhaps in 20 years we will restrict these practices.
    The biggest obstacle in this is the Liberal party of Canada. The sooner they go the better.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You hit this issue RIGHT ON THE HEAD. This will turn the liberal left and anti-male crowd into complete pretzels as they try to 'protect' the right of women to the reproductive process, but fight any preference being shown to the gender of a baby (even if the preference is based upon cultural or religious or just plain-old personal-preference).

    I doubt this issue will be investigated so deeply on the CBC as the one regarding gay-divorce.

    Ed the Hun

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is a problem for the pro-aborts who argue that an unborn baby is not a human being and therefore can be killed and removed at any stage prior to birth. They maintain it is the right of the woman to decide. They cannot with any credibility now argue that if the unborn is a girl, she cannot be killed and removed. Of course they now want it both ways, but that cannot be.

    I should also add that the whole affair is a major problem for all those little lives being terminated.

    ReplyDelete
  4. this is nonsense. If it is a womans right to commit feticide (?) because she is broke, of in the middle of a modelling career or because she doesn't know who the dad is, then she ought to be able to do the same because she doesn't like the gender of the baby. You cannot have it both ways. If you are going to trust women to make informed, moral decisions then you are going to have to put your money where your mouth is. Call me troublesome but ido not recall ever being asked what I thought about the 'right' to abortion. So what gives the government or the CMA the right to decide what the acceptable circumstance are?

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is a debate I would welcome.

    Either a woman has the "right to choose" or she doesn't. If having an abortion because it's a girl is repugnant, then any reason to have one is.

    ReplyDelete
  6. That's why in many health authorities in BC they no longer allow people to find out what gender the baby is during the ultrasound. You can pay for a private one though and find out.

    ReplyDelete

ShareThis