And the problem with religious new immigrants to Canada compounds...
Religious immigrants don't want female babies. So when they arrive in Canada and find that our healthcare system gives them the right to know the sex of their foetus, the result is an increased number of female foetus abortions, for religious reasons.
Some people are fighting against this form of sexist abortion seeking. But it begs the question... If these religious morons DON'T want their female infant, are her chances of being mistreated increased?
There are no easy answers, people's religiosity, even in a secular system, causes ethical problems. So our choice is sexist abortion rates or mistreatment of female infants?
Well, one activist is asking that foetus sex be withheld until the 30 week mark... when it is more difficult to get an abortion. Personally, I see absolutely NO reason to be revealing the sex of a future child. There is absolutely no scientific or knowledge benefit to knowing the sex. It's an entirely different context than testing for diseases.
EDIT: I'll add any web links relevant to the story here.
Jan. 16--Huffington.ca Selective Abortions Prompt Call For Later Ultrasounds
Jan. 16--TheStar.com Canadian doctor’s suggestion to delay revealing baby’s sex ignites ...
let me begin by saying I am 100% behind a woman's choice to choose, and fight long & hard to keep that right legal in Canada, but I really need to see your data backing up this particular hypothesis.
Agreed with first statement... work ongoing on second statement. :)
We need to keep on top of this.
Ok so having had alarm bells going off in my head about this particular idea I spent the morning researching where this has come from.Appears to have hit the news from an Editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, who it should be noted are trying to distance themselves from the assertion made by Dr Kale, the interm editor & chief.
Dr Kale has cited 2 studies:
"The editorial was based in part on unpublished research by University of British Columbia economist Kevin Milligan and two colleagues at Columbia University."
"Also cited in Dr. Kale’s editorial is a U.S. study of 65 female Indian immigrants that found that 40 per cent had previously aborted a female fetus and 90 per cent of those currently pregnant with a girl had pursued the idea of abortion. Although research on the subject in Canada is still developing, scholars have long argued that India and China have a gender imbalance that suggests significant sex-selective abortion."
( please not the bolding is mine to show what made me pause not from the actual article) so we have unpublish ( therefore UNreviewed research) and another study with a base group of 65 women. This is not reliable information and appears to be much more of a news paper OH MYGAWD LOOK WHATS HAPPENING IN THE WORLD BE AFRAID type piece.
It's already being picked up by the ANTI CHOICE movement. It's an agenda being pushed forward under the guise of protecting females. I am extremely suspicious of the intent. Its also not something that can simply be put into effect as you would have to change the Charter of Rights & Freedoms.
Drs do NOT own the patients information and cannot legally withhold it. They also seem to forget there are on the market other biochemical test that can be taken to find out the sex of the baby.
It is far more important, and effective to continue EDUCATING people than it is to begin taking away rights.
(edit for typo)
As with the non existence of Gods debate... the burden of proof lies on the party making the extraordinary statement, the burden of proof lies in the hands of believers.
The same here, the basic statement is certainly that immigrants from countries in which selective abortion (or neonatal infanticide) is normal will continue to do so in Canada. The alternate hypothesis, that with the burden of proof, is the likelihood that an immigrant will behave as an "average" Canadian given this female foetus information.
Any chance you still have those links you found? I'd like to read them. Thank you.
What do you think of simply delaying gender info, or delaying ultrasound altogether? With absolutely no effect on access to abortion?
I think interfering with a patients right to their medical information ( it is owned BY THE PATIENT NOT THE DR) is a bad idea and illegal, and is an end run around the charter and a way to start making changes in our legal rights
Ok. Point taken, on access to the information.
But what about delaying the procedure, for all, unless there is a medical imperative?
Compare this to mammograms... For a while the medical community was suggesting mammograms from age 30, we now realise that caused more harm than good, so we've delayed mammograms to age 50 (unless medical imperative).
Again show me the empirical data showing this is really happening.
actually you made a claim this terrible thing is happening here now in this country to such a sate that we should have to change laws, and I said "Why should I believe this?"
a) immigrants behave as their own original culture
b) immigrants behave as average Canadians
Claim (b) is the extraordinary statement.
That a recent immigrant will behave as his/her culture of origin causes me no cognitive dissonance. Gender-selective abortion annoys me certainly, but that's just my culture showing through.
I am 110% FOR choice
I am 150% FOR abortion
I am 200% for sterilisation as contraception.
(Just so you're clear on what side I'm on :)
please point to where b) has been stated at any time