Sometimes. What if the couple has 4 boys already and wants a girl?
Still, I’m not sure how legislating agains the practice will affect those who live in cultures that value boys over girls. I have no interest in sanctioning such practices, but I don’t consider such abortion laws to be a sanction. What we permit is not necessarily what we approve of.
I’ve no problem with that. I assume if one of their earlier children had been a girl, it wouldn’t have been an issue.
Heck, you can’t even outlaw with any effectiveness the use of rhino horn and tiger penises in these cultures.
I do not support a ban on sex selective abortion because it places more scrutiny on a woman’s motive for obtaining an abortion, and of course, women from specific cultural backgrounds will have to suffer the most indignities and stereotyping. IMO changing attitudes about the value of females in misogynist societies would start by raising the status of women in general with education and opportunities.
Rather the left is probably more concerned about the future social problems stemming from unequal numbers of males to females, and the reality of deep rooted sexism in society; and not, as you suggest, harboring (deep down inside) some greater significance for the fetus.
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Health/20120418/gender-selection-fertility-clini-Indo-Canadians-120418/
Hope that is sufficient.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks - now I understand. I think you’re referring to the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, a federal statute, which provides:
However, I’m not sure that it would apply to an abortion, since the opening words of the provision state that it is “for the purpose of creating a human being.” I don’t know if there has been any cases which have considered this issue.
I’m kinda curious why that phrasing exists at all. What’s it supposed to accomplish?
Just an aside, but I feel that I should point out the following:
A normal person getting an 18 week ultrasound cannot tell the gender of the fetus*. The sonographer can, if she tries, but it isn’t easy, and it isn’t 100% by a long shot. In general, within the healthcare system the gender isn’t investigated, imaged or commented upon unless there is a medical reason. **
*it’s the umbilical cord. He’s not hung like a mule.
** In Canada at least.
That passage would almost certainly NOT apply to an abortion, since it specifies “in vitro”, that is, outside the body, aka “test tube” or petri dish. Abortions only happen once the zygote/fetus is in vivo, inside the body.
Perhaps there’s another statute which would pertain to abortions, but that doesn’t appear to.
I’m ok with abortion at any time, for any reason, prior to birth. Life begins at birth. We don’t celebrate “conception” days, we celebrate birthdays.
Well, we had an ultrasound done at 19 weeks and it was very obvious to me that I was having a boy, noticed it before the tech did. So either there is a lot of development in that one week, or my son is particularly gifted (takes after Daddy) or your facts are perhaps a bit off.
PS: if someone is so dead set against a certain gender, I can see no good in forcing them to bear and raise a child of that gender. Better to let them abort that fetus than subject a child to abuse or neglect, IMHO.
Some sex linked conditions (e.g. Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy or Hunter Syndrome) are generally regarded as quite serious medically with major impacts on the quailty of life of the patient. Others (Color blindness or G6PD) are not considered nearly as serious and most such patients live active lives.
The whole “sex-linked disorder or disease” exception in the Canadian law makes no distinction based upon the severity of the condition. If the law is not going to distinguish then there is no point making any restriction at all.
If you get the right shot you can occasionally see the bits. Not typical. Mazel tov.
Also, nice post / username combo.
I don’t like the idea, but it ultimately is not my choice. Someone else on the other hand may make that particular decision.
And I could see if they already had a couple of boys and desperately wanted a girl, or widdershins.
It’s a non-issue in the West and anyone who tries to claim it’s a problem is just trying to misuse the term “misogyny” to justify taking away women’s reproductive rights.
In fact, “sperm-washing” techniques to change the odds of conceiving the desired sex are, in the great majority of cases, used to increase the odds of conceiving a girl. Apparently, the tiny minority of couples who are willing to undergo these high-tech procedures are seeking daughters, not trying to avoid them. The idea that sex-selective abortions are an issue in the West is absurd on its face, but the idea that they’re being used to get rid of girls is an intellectually indefensible rationalization for restricting reproductive freedom.
That’s nothing more than societal convention. If societal convention dictates when life begins, then does that mean that life begins before birth in eastern Asia but not elsewhere?
No statute that I’m aware of anywhere in Canada currently in force that specifically relates to abortion. There’s no criminal prohibitions under federal law, and I believe that abortion is regulated by the medical profession under provincial laws as simply another medical procedure; regulation of training required by the doctors and nurses involved, the standards for the facilities, etc.
Very few adoption processes now permit gender selection, btw. Because when they do, they end up with a glut of unplaced boys (for some reason girls are more valued by adopting couples). And those boys sometimes grow up in institutions.
So the solution for the misogynist wanting a boy is not to adopt either. They still might end up with a girl (and don’t have a great chance of passing a homestudy).