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.