Early disclosure of fetal sex leads to aborted girls: MD

[flamingfingers]

Ya, but today there are more (and perhaps better) choices.. ;-)

"Sex or your mobile phone?"

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-st ... .htm#74974

Nab

NAB!! You made me snort perfectly good wine onto my beloved wireless keyboard!! Sex or my mobile? Umm... Ah... Hmmm..
Ne'mind... gotta go lcanel by kbscfd....

[Glacier]

When some rogue MP brought forward his private members bill last week asking parliament to look at abortion from a scientific viewpoint, it is rumored that Stephan Harper stood up and said, "come on, we are the Conservative Party of Canada. Since when have we ever wanted to look at anything scientifically? 400 years of tradition down the drain? I don't think so! A fiddler on the roof. Sounds crazy, no? But in our little village of Anatevka, every one of us is a fiddler on the roof trying to scratch out a pleasant, simple tune without breaking his neck. It isn't easy. You may ask, why do we stay here if it's so dangerous? We stay because Anatevka is our home. And how do we keep our balance? That I can tell you in one word: Tradition! "

[Nom_de_Plume]

it was Stephen Woodworth, MP of Kitchener.
The private members bill (m-312) was brought forward so he'd have a leg to stand on to eventually stop abortion in Canada.

If you watched the parliamentary debate (I did live feed and it totally rocked)
Hedy Fry especially was awesome in her speech.

All the news articles kept saying how awesome Gordon O'Conner's speech was but that was probably because he was from Woodworths own party and totally handed his butt back to him.

[Bonger420]

I find it appalling that I could potentially be prevented from knowing the sex of my unborn child, due to a few minorities killing their offspring for cultural issues.

Rather than hold everyone accountable for these groups action why not hold the group responsible. If they can not handle having a girl or even 10 girls if thats how many time they get pregnant, then perhaps it should be illegal for them to have children, period.
Perhaps then through their own cultural pressures they will be forced to accept reality.

Perhaps we could identify which "cultures" practice sex preferences and legislate against them not having babies, this would be very good at curbing sex selection, and those of us that are more than happy with our children, whatever the sex, we can continue to use technology to our benefit.

[OnTheRoadAgain]

When we had our kids in Kamloops, it was against the policy in BC to reveal the sex. I know some people went to Calgary to find out, but I guess BC hospitals now tell you?

Yes they tell you.
Newest one in our circle on facebook:

February: "we're pregnant!"
March :"It's a boy!"
End of March: "His name is *****!"
Early april: photos of ultrasound, first published photo of their unborn child.
April: Photos of nursery and toys dad is making.
Sometime in July The birth.

[The Green Barbarian]

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... -good-one/

According to a new study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, the proportion of male second children born to Indo-Canadian and Korean-Canadian women is disproportionately high. While the study’s author, Dr. Joel Ray, cautions against assuming that the numbers are a result of female-fetus abortions, it is difficult not to view such abortions as the likely culprit. We know many Asian and Southeast Asian cultures place a premium on male children. And as recently as January of this year, the Canadian Medical Association Journal itself raised the alarm about sex selection through abortion by Canadians of Asian descent. The Journal editorialized in favour of withholding the sex of a developing child from parents until 30 weeks into a pregnancy to stop the practice. (Abortions at that late stage of pregnancy are highly unusual and would be difficult and complicated to obtain.)

According to the Toronto Star, six Toronto area hospitals already make it a practice to have their ultrasound sonographers withhold a baby’s gender, presumably for this reason.

But keeping information about their children from expectant parents is a terrible way to address the problems at issue. For one thing, it does nothing to change the sexist attitudes motivating the communities in question.

For another, it violates a mother’s right as a patient to be told everything her doctor knows about her health and body. Surely if a woman has a right to abort a fetus at any stage and for any reason (as she currently does under Canadian law), then she must also have a right to know whether that fetus is male or female.

Is the goal to stop a woman from destroying a fetus for the wrong reasons? It certainly seems to be. But if that’s the case, then what are the right reasons? And who gets to decide them?

As thing stand, we not only allow women to learn about their fetus’s likelihood of having a developmental disability. We encourage them to do so through numerous routine tests that are offered in the early stages of pregnancy. We do not make any effort to keep this information from women to stop them from aborting fetuses with Down syndrome.

Is wanting to abort a developing child because she is female worse than wanting to abort a developing child because he has Down syndrome? And do adults with Down syndrome, and their families, get a say in the answer to that question?

Is wanting to abort a developing child because she is female worse than wanting to abort a developing child for no particular reason at all? Or to spite a husband or boyfriend? Or as a form of birth control?

Or what about wanting to abort a child because she is female but for a more societally acceptable reason? For example, what about wanting to abort a child because she is female and the mother has a long family history of aggressive breast cancer that she does not want to pass on to her child?

The minute you start monitoring people’s motivations for seeking an abortion, you enter into a thicket of thorny questions that highlight the moral vacuum that characterizes our current approach to abortion — and that also act as a reminder for why no one wants to talk about it, for it’s impossible to do so without getting pricked.

As bioethicist Margaret Somerville pointed out after the CMAJ editorial in January, the issue of sex selection through abortion does something that makes a lot of us confused: It focuses on the fetus as a being that needs to be protected from her mother’s choice to abort her, rather than focusing exclusively or excessively on the mother’s choice.

Will concern about female-fetus abortions be enough to get this country facing up to the fact that we may not be as comfortable with the abortion status quo as we like to think we are (not that we really like to think about)? It would be beneficial if it did. Convoluted half-measures such as keeping a baby’s gender secret certainly won’t do anything — except maybe help us keep our heads buried in the sand.

[sobrohusfat]

As bioethicist Margaret Somerville pointed out after the CMAJ editorial in January, the issue of sex selection through abortion does something that makes a lot of us confused: It focuses on the fetus as a being that needs to be protected from her mother’s choice to abort her, rather than focusing exclusively or excessively on the mother’s choice.

But why would it be confusing? How can the pro-choice crowd amongst us insist abortion is nothing more than the removal of a collection of insignificant cells - equivalent to a glob of snot ... but then pretend to be vexed when told the glob of snot is female.

So, killing a healthy fetus is nothing to get upset about, sexism towards a glob of snot is. OK, got it.

[Glacier]

Canadian doctors are now calling for the Government of Canada to reopen the abortion debate. A similar debate occurred in the U.S. over whether or not to ban abortions based on sex selection, but was defeated last week. By contrast China, Indian, and U.K. have passed such bans.

Given the fact Stephan Harper has vehemently vowed to never reopen the abortion debate, it's safe to say we won't see this kind of drama in Canada.

[Nom_de_Plume]

Canadian doctors are now calling for the Government of Canada to reopen the abortion debate. A similar debate occurred in the U.S. over whether or not to ban abortions based on sex selection, but was defeated last week. By contrast China, Indian, and U.K. have passed such bans.

Given the fact Stephan Harper has vehemently vowed to never reopen the abortion debate, it's safe to say we won't see this kind of drama in Canada.

wouldn't it just be easier to ban early fetal sex disclosure?
I personally have never understood the fascination with wanting to know the gender of my child before it was born.
Recently I've also noticed a trend among younger generation parents to name and send xmas cards in the fetus' name prior to it being actually born.
I don't understand this logic at all.
I don't believe you can adequately name your child until you meet it. All the names I'd selected for my second child didn't suit and I chose a completely different name once I actually met her face to face.

[OnTheRoadAgain]

This is the issue with 'rights'. Interpretation.
So if a woman has legal right to abort her unwanted child, why should she not also have the right to choose the sex of the children she wants through selective abortion?
It's only one step away from a lifetime disability issue with a special needs child.

[Glacier]

wouldn't it just be easier to ban early fetal sex disclosure?

I looked into this one a little further. The bill in the U.S. that was defeated wanted to ban abortions based on sex selection. , while the CBC news item was in response the undercover investigation in the U.K. From this, Canadians doctors were raising the idea of making it illegal to reveal the sex of a fetus before 20 weeks. Of course it has been argued that banning the revelation of gender until 20 weeks will lead to more women having later term abortions.