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 ...
Every concept has two sides, by definition.
Either immigrants behave as Canadians or they don't (with variance on each topic), simple. I'm sensing you a little belligerent on this and I'm not understanding why.
When doing scientific research, this is how one constructs a viable hypothesis, a question with two possible answers, yeah or neah, two opposing statements about one question.
OK you are missing my point even though I have tried to make it clear. You may or may not have a hypothesis about how "immigrants" act as apposed to how "average" Canadians act ( because all immigrants act in way A and all "Average" Canadians.. whatever that constitutes.. act in way B all the time). I have never engaged in an argument on either side of that strange hypothesis. BUT that is not now nor has it ever been the question at hand. The question: IS WHY SHOULD I BELIVE THIS IS HAPPENING TO SUCH A LARGE DEGREE THAT WE AS A NATION NEED TO CHANGE THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS & FREEDOMS, and not only why should I believe this is happening to a large degree but even if it IS happening, which hasn't been shown, why should I believe that changing the charter would be the right way to address it? Where is your data backing up such a bold statement
Changing our Charter... nope, never said that :)
Your using a word such as 'all' distorts the argument. Scientific testing is not based on an 'all' terminology, it's based on reaching a significant probability, usually a 'P' of .05.
Future studies on this topic would use this type of hypothesis:
Indian-origined mothers are 'significantly' more likely to get gender selective abortion compared to the Canadian average (not "average Canadian" as there is not such thing).
To test this, we'd have to use a significant sample of both the specific group, and the Canadian population at large.
General knowledge about equal births for males and females in Canada already gives us the answer for what is average in Canada, so the question is whether this average is different for each ethnic grouping.
It is possible that the sample is too small. But what would be an acceptable sample size to you... 1/1000? 1/100 of first generation Indians? of first and second generations? or of first and second and third generation Indians?
Most samplings in large polls in Canada, to reflect Canada as a whole, are around 1500 respondents, that's .00005 of the population. This percentage applied to all of Canada's 250,000 yearly immigrants would be 12.5 immigrants, not many..., that's for all our immigrants, let alone just Indian immigrants... So it seems to me that 60 Indian women is in fact a quite decent sampling.
The next step is, ok this is but one study, now before we can consider this an accepted fact, we need several studies which would reach the same conclusion.
I do think this is a valid course of research, and a valid financial research investment. It's possible multiple studies on this topic would reveal that early ultrasounds are of no real benefit to mothers (unless medical imperative), all things considered.
In this case, what you call rhetoric, I call a valid discussion about the course of scientific/medical research.
is this actually happening in Canada? When I was pregnant, I was not allowed to know what the sex was until it was way too late to do something about it (I'm Canadian btw) I don't mean to imply that it can't happen or doesn't, but I'd really like to know what the numbers are before I go charging off in any direction.
Ultrasound technicians can first determine the gender of the foetus anywhere between 11 and 28 weeks, depending on foetal positioning and ultrasound equipment resolution. So a mother can know at any time in this time.
The topic was raised yesterday evening by CBC radio. The speakers specifically DID NOT talk about anti-choice...regarding abortion. What is hoped for by the guest speaker was to make sure abortion can not be attributed to the sex of the child. The access to abortion is NOT questioned here at all. What they are proposing is to not declare the child's sex until 30 weeks.
Selective abortion (and neonatal infanticide) is common in many countries, the more religious immigrants show up here, considering Canadian culture is obsessed with allowing immigrants to keep their culture and not adapt to Canadiana... selective abortion seems to me to be the default statement. The opposite statement "that immigrants no more selectively abort than than Canada's average" would be the statement with the burden of proof.
I've had three abortions, while using contraception, so you can guess what my stance on the topic is. So if this debacle turns into an anti-choice issue I'll be on it like a feminist bitch with a bone. But as long as it remains a matter of selective abortion bias, I think it definitely needs further attention and study.
For me the real question is... if an immigrant does not want the female infant, does having her increase the risk of mistreatment of said female infant? I'd prefer an abortion over mistreatment... but selective abortion for such vanity as gender seems below human to me.
I am torn.
Ok before anything else you have to prove to me this is a significant segment of the population to warrant changing the Charter of Rights & Freedoms.
The whole argument made in this case has been supported by dubious science and opinion of an individual Dr. who happens to have written an editorial piece. There is no significant science backing up the opinion.
"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"
That means that 40% of those women who had an abortion knew the sex was female - it says nothing about motivation.
90% of women know pregnant with a girl had pursued the idea of abortion... when?
It doesn't mean they're doing it NOW... or was that what was implied?
Because 9/10 women pregnant with a girl thinking about abortion means you'd see a massive disparity in the number of male/female children in those groups.
Personally I couldn't find any data that showed a significant disparity, if you have I'd love to see it.
Two main points:
A: it's not confirmable fact so it's garbage data. So there's no need to pass any law on it.
B: This is a "thin edge of the wedge" thing. IT is about choice. This is just another way of doing a run around for antiabortionists.
So next they can make rules saying that anyone who says they say, are doing an abortion because they can't afford to have a child should submit their 1099 tax forms to prove it? We should have a minimum cut off income for abortion? Please.
Again the question I ask is WHY is removing patient’s rights the correct answer?
As far as Immigrants not adapting to "Canadiana"... erm maybe have a chat with a few Native groups before getting to high up on that particular horse.
First Nations and Inuit were here long before Euros/Asians/Africans/, I have no expectation of them adopting Canadiana... in fact I think they are slowly on a valuable path of self affirmation, after years of torture in the name of religion and colonialism. It's a long and arduous path and I wish them every success... which is for me also... as most Acadians (of which I'm part) have a smidgeon of that bloodline.
In my opinion, late-comers to a culture should adapt to that culture. But I'm not naïve, I realise war and colonialism accomplish the exact opposite.
First Nations and Inuit across Canada have been fucked up the ars (literally and figuratively) by colonial religions, and it takes a long time to heal those kinds of wounds.
I would suggest that adopting "Canadiana" should be adopting Native culture not the other way around.
well yes, that would 'have' been great, but the reality is that it never happened on a large scale... except in the USA constitution... To expect future immigrants to adapt to aboriginals' culture instead of 500 year colonial culture, yes, that's an interesting idea... but then that would mean joining today's minority culture... hey, it's their choice...
Interestingly, David Suzuki did do that somewhat. He's a second generation Canadian, who has allied himself with First Nation culture. I do applaud him for that. Some French and Germans do come here with a romantic vision of First Nations... build a cabin in the forest, live off the land, wear fringed leathers.
Yes, some do... but it's rare. Myself, I'm somewhere between colonial culture and First Nation romanticist.
not really my point. I find flag waving because of an accident of birth a bit..meh. I would be interested in exactly what you think this mythical "Average Canadian" would be , and how I can spot on in a crowd
I'm no flag waver!!! :)
I get really annoyed at outsiders dictating my way of life. I've met many new immigrants who thought our Canadian styled healthcare system was stupid and irrelevant. I've seen Muslims win court cases to force neighbours to frost their windows so they would glimpse them naked, and so many more such situations.
When I moved to Western Canada, I was astounded at how culture on this side is different from the East. Out here, a majority of the population ARE recent immigrants, and this crowd tend to opine that the very definition of Canadiana is the absence of Canadiana, the absence of culture. I've even met a local atheist who opines culture is just another word for religion and he therefore fights any concept of culture altogether. Myself, I do not opine that culture is equivalent to religion. Eastern Canadians experience very little connection with other countries. Eastern Canadians have been around for so many generations, that a Canadian culture has formed around this nucleus. Western Canada, well, there just isn't enough history to have a culture per se.
But don't you think it's inconvenient to deny 'Canadiana' in the same breath as you say "this terrible thing" in relation to selective abortion? It's only a terrible thing, because 'Canadiana' culture views it as non ethical... that is the 'Canadiana' viewpoint on this topic... Yes?
Culture is but the average daily reflection of our lives, each region has it's interpretation paradigms of this daily life.
you again miss what I am saying.
Personally I dont think this is happening to the extent that the news and some people would like us to think. My "This Terrible thing" was in reference to the whole subject being spun as if it IS a terrible thing.
BTW "Canadiana"... unless you are talking about a specific type of literature/art I hate it it reminds me of plastic mounties and those "Eskimo" dolls they used to sell, fake culture for tourists.
I still have no explanation of what an Average Canadian is , how they act or how I can pick them out of a crowd... I have asked for that to be explained to me at least twice.
Should immigrants try and fit into the land they move to? of course they should. Should laws be changed solely on the ground of cultural or religious beliefs? no of course not. Should I get my knickers in a twist because the news picks up on an EDITORIAL that the actual CMA are trying to distance themselves from? no. Should I paint all immigrants as being either A or B because they are immigrants? no.
SHOULD I look for empirical data and reasons why news and or other groups would skew a story for a specific purpose damn straight I should.
All I have heard so far is rhetoric, based on some very dubious data.