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.

 

Sigh :(

 

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 ...

Tags: abortion, birth, female, patriarchy, ratio, sexism, ultrasound

Views: 214

Replies to This Discussion

I guess when it comes down to it, gender of the foetus is simply NOT relevant medically, so unless a gender-derived congenital defect is statistically suspected, there is absolutely no medical reason to be identifying gender of foetus.

Some arguments I've read about wanting to know the foetus' gender are so that people can buy appropriate toys, decorations, clothing for the coming baby... WHAT THE FUCK!!! People who think they need to buy gender-appropriate stuff for their newborns aren't even deserving of being parents to begin with!

Several provincial medical associations view gender determination as NOT a reason to have any medical procedure, and see such medical actions to be contrary to their charters, whether they be ultrasounds or biochemical tests, or any other technology that comes around. Foetus gender should be a non issue. And parents who think gender is an issue should be shamed (unless a medical anomaly is expected).

Nice debate.

I think it was a hypothesis proposed and then someone started to look for the evidence.

Media also looking for a story.

We need population increase to fill future jobs and keep the economy going and pay my pension! I am all for the rights of the women to choose but selective termination based on sex is not her choice but their BS culture they brought with them and likely being enforced by the male of the relationship. In that point, they need to assimilate into Canada. And I would like to see all their religions disappear.

So is it really pro choice? I don't think it is.

except that... You only need "population increase" if your belief system involves perpetual growth of humanity. I think most reasonable people understand that unlimited growth of humanity is not feasible. Unlimited growth only works in a the obsolete context where people believe they can shit on the planet without care, as their true destination is not earth but heaven. For any of us who actually acknowledge the reality that our life is encompassed by our present earthly environment, the concept of "perpetual growth" is no different than the the concept of deities.

I'm all for immigrants aborting (hopefully to at least the level we long termers do), I would just rather it be done in equal gender proportions.

I do believe in Pro Choice but I don't agree with late term abortions of a healthy fetus where it is viable without assistance. So in those cases, I do think it is murder and don't understand anyone doing it UNLESS there is imminent threat to the mother's life but then, the fetus would be viable if removed.

only if surgery is imposed on the woman

The whole point of pregnancy is the development of the foetus. It takes the ful 9 months, give or take a few days, to make a healthy baby. A foetus born before its time is by definition not ready for the world. Even healthy 'premies' have extremely high levels of many diseases, to the glee of Big Pharma which gets another high maintenance human to pump with pills half its life. A foetus is ready when it's biologically time for birth, not before.

Not true. A fetus is viable before the full term and natural birth time.

You may want to brush up on your pregnancy knowledge:

Weeks 26-38

It's now known that when the foetus is fully developed and ready for the outside world, there are various biochemical signals which signal the mother's body it is time.

Anyways... access and timing of abortion are not raised by the discussion at hand. It is whether idiot parents are using something as superficial as gender to decide which will be born or not. Might as well say they'll use hair/eye colour to make that decision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viability_%28fetal%29

Nice chart there. As I said, "Not true".

We're talking viability, we're talking "non-medical-maintenance" readiness. Viability studies are done to satisfy pro-lifers who insist on cutting women open before the foetus is ready to be born naturally. Before the lungs are properly matured, before the immune system is properly matured.

Lorien your agenda to force infants onto women speaks louder than your knowledge of biology. No foetus should exit the mother's body before it ready to do so.

I will not enable you in this.

No, I am not saying the mother needs to keep the child. They could let it go for adoption. Terminating a viable healthy fetus for no other reason than a choice is wrong. It should have been terminated before it was viable. Just give it away. There is a shortage of new borns for adoption. Note, I do say a healthy viable fetus. Are you saying that it is perfectly OK for a mother to elect to terminate a perfectly healthy fetus for no medical reason but her choice at 2 weeks, 3 weeks or 4 weeks before the expected date???? If not, how far back would you say it is OK?????

If you say yes it is OK, then you disgust me and probably a large proportion of pro choice supporters too.

Plus, you will find most doctors would not be willing to abort a healthy viable fetus and would present adoption options.

RSS

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service