selective abortion in Canada (Page 2)

"the child suffering at birth" is really a gray area too...Down Syndrome is a good example...we all probably know children and even adults with Down Syndrome that live challenging, but happy lives.  however, in the eyes of modern medicine, that is a perfectly acceptable reason to terminate.  many have health complications.  many miscarry and are stillborn.  but some still thrive.  is that...ok?  i know where i stand, just kind of trying to show how difficult it is to "draw a line"

Thanks for the response.  I do think Don raises an interesting point.  If society (understanding you did say you were only speaking for yourself) views this factor in the decision as monstrous or evil, it raises the question of whether or not the way the system currently views abortion (to simply, no reason required) is a problem.  I certainly understand your reaction, but, for a variety of reasons I'm having a hard time expressing, I hesitate to share it.

Yeah as soon as I posted that I knew this would come up.  And I agree it's gray.  IMO Down's Syndrome is not suffering.  It's a disability but I have known people who have lived happy lives with DS.  I'm talking about gross malformations where the quality of life is very low or perhaps the child is guaranteed not to live very long outside the womb.  Yes a tough "line" to draw.

I'll use the term "reasonable" - as in "it would be reasonable to consider abortion if...." - this gets us away from the black and white terminology

It would be reasonable to consider abortion if you know from ultrasound that you have an anencephalic fetus (one with no brain present - essentially doomed to death within a few hours of birth)

It would be reasonable to consider an abortion if the woman is experiencing life threatening complications of bearing the child or of attempting delivery

In other words, it would be reasonable to consider abortion if the fetus has a condition generally known to result in either early death or severe and chronic pain and suffering; or if the mother's wellbeing is at risk. It is not mandatory - no one is advocating for forced abortions here. But my two ends of the spectrum are clear risk of harm in carrying out the pregnancy means it is reasonable to consider abortion and at the other end, aborting potentially viable fetuses just because one can is unreasonable. Where is the line drawn for reasonable/not reasonable beyond those extremes? I don't exactly know. But I reject the dogmatic rejection of ALL abortion just because we don't have the exact answer.

Do you know if there are there studies that show the percentage of abortions that are done for these types of reasons?

Gearboy and I essentially agree?  Wow, the stars must be aligned...

OK.

So then can we agree that aborting a fetus
because it is a girl is unreasonable? 

Well, it IS 2012, and the whole end of the Mayan calender thing is going on, sooo......

And to Don's point, I believe we can.

Hi TriR, I tried highlighting the line that reminds me of something that has been on my mind this weekend.  I saw a statistic that at first I found hard to believe...but then I thought of all the people I know and see in a day, so I guess it's not surprising, it just leaves me shaking my head.  

In traditional hetero relationships, about 50% of babies born were NOT planned.  The statistic was from an article claiming that gay parents may actually on average be better parents (on average) than traditional, hetero parents.  The point the author made was in my opinion probably valid.  Gay couples have to jump through a lot of hurdles to become parents...basically, they are almost always planned.  Babies born are rarely "whoopsies."  Interesting stuf to think about.

btw, more on-topic, this whole female infanticide and sex-selective abortion thing is disgusting to me...as it is most likely is to most citizens in Western culture.  While I am personally pro-life, I am politically pro-choice...and even being politically pro-choice, I find this practice vile.

...but then again, I'm not a fan of individuals that "root for" having a baby of one particular sex.  That irks me. 

I don't know the statistics but let me give you my personal story. 

I got unexpectedly pregnant with twins when my first child was 6 months old.  They were identical twins who we discovered had a fetal disease at 19 weeks.  Left untreated the disease was 100% fatal.  Among our treatment options were 1) do nothing and they would both die, 2) do monthly amnioreductions which would be ineffective given the progression of the disease, 3) have surgery which gave a 50% chance of them both living and an 85% of one living, or 4) abort one baby.  The reality is 1 and 2 were certain death for both boys.  We obviously went with #3 b/c for me an abortion is not an option.  I understand how it would feel like an only option for someon in the same situation though.  Five years ago, I don't know about now, the surgery was still considered experimental and many insurances did not cover the cost.  In addition to the surgery, only a handful of fetal centers that do this surgery even exist requiring extensive travel for many people.  I know what a horrible position this is to be in and when someone feels like the only way to save even one baby is to abort the other, I understand. 

It does happen that babies are aborted in an effort to save another life.  It is an awful, horrible thing a distressed parent has to even consider. 

Surprised? No.

I have heard for sometime now that doctor's won't share the sex of the baby in cities with a high Indo-Canadian population. I have no idea if this is accurate, but I've heard this for awhile, so it means that I am not surprised.

Thanks for sharing.  I had not doubt it happens and is horrible.  I posed the question because what seems to be developing in this thread is a distinction between reasonable v. unreasonable abortion, although both are legal.  I was curious if any studies demonstrated the reasons for mothers deciding to get an abortion and where those reasons fell on people's reasonable/unreasonable spectrum.

Or PEI....  doctors here won't either but not for that reason.

This is an interesting statement. The wording above implies that an abortion for non-gender selective reasons does not make you 'a horrible person and murderer.' 

There is of problem with that logic. If we hold to the premise that a woman has unrestricted right to decide and do what she wants with her body and a fetus is some pseudo-parasitic growth that is part of a woman's body then there should be no issue with aborting for what ever reason strikes your fancy. Eyes not blue enough? Abort. Not blond enough? Abort. Until, like that pair of West49 slingbacks, you find the perfect one. 

Try out this variant problem: A teenaged girl tells her family she's pregnant. It happened at some beach party and she does not even remember the boy's name. The family is struggling with what the right choice. Then the girl informs her parents that the boy was black. The family decides that they will abort the pregnancy.  How do you feel about this scenario?

These scenarios are troublesome for many 'pro-choice'-ers because they can not reconcile their belief in gender or racial equality with their firm belief that a fetus is not yet human. Yet you can't be the victim of racism or sexism if your not human.

I would suggest that the 'pro-choice'ers who are troubled by these scenarios are not fully convinced themselves that a fetus is simply a part of a woman's body and she may chose what to do with it at her pleasure.

Many try a to create some middle ground where the fetus takes on human life and value based only when the intent of the mother is incongruent with other norms.  I find that intellectually and morally cowardly.

I told myself I would not get into an online debate about this (again). I won't be posting anymore on this subject. Flame away.

Huh. For what reason, purportedly?

Anyway--sex-selective abortion is Asia's ENORMOUS dirty secret. Actually, it's no secret. Even though sex ratios are naturally slightly skewed anyway, throughout much of Asia (some places are far worse than others--think China especially when the technology was available and the one-child policy was very strictly enforced), they are REALLY skewed.

THAT is appalling.

Here's my thinking on the sex-selective abortion issue.

If SEX of the fetus is given as a reason for prohibiting an abortion, then I think it's being conceded that the fetus is human with human rights, and therefore should not be aborted for any reason.

I'm actually not shocked at all.  Appalled, yes - but not shocked. 

It's true that doctors won't share the sex of the birth in certain areas: high populated Indo-Canadian and Chinese-Canadian areas being two of them, though it's not such a big thing in the Chinese culture anymore (I have a very good friend who's a top OB-GYN in Langley, Surrey, Richmond and Vancouver hospitals) who has told us some terrible stories. 

Yes, that is why here too.  They are too worried about making a mistake and getting sued so it's easier to just not say anything.  People go to private ultrasound clinics and get the info there instead (where I'm sure they sign something saying if they are wrong, too bad...).

The problem with dichotomous thinking is that it lacks the gray areas of the real world. I am pro-choice and also troubled by abortion. My issue is that there is a line of viability. Many fertilized eggs never implant adequately and get lost, sometimes even without the person knowing they were pregnant. Pre-viable embryos and fetuses may have the POTENTIAL for life, but at that definition, so does every egg and quite a few sperm. To flip your example (that I didn't include in the quote) on it's head, imagine a girl reaches puberty and becomes pregnant at the age of 11 without having even a single menses. Would the parents be happy that she is fertile and bringing to life all potential lives she can bear? If not, then the pro-lifers have not really reconciled their belief that all potential people have the same right to life at all stages. Especially in the age when technologic and medical advances allow any woman to be pregnant without having actual sex, the "normal" objection against premarital sex as a factor is a non-issue. And frankly, the (what I see as repugnant) practice in some countries of wedding essentially children to grown men makes perfect sense in that context.

A fetus which cannot survive out of utero does not in fact have an independent life, only the potential for life. The problem is that the age of viability gets younger and younger with advances in medical technology and secondarily that the very youngest preemies have the greatest risks of still failing even with supports. So at what point should that line be drawn between viable and non-viable?

Haven't seen this practice in AB at this point. Just finished my Obs/gyne rotaton in December and there wasn't anyone who wanted to know the sex of the fetus who wasn't told.  

US House Democrats defeat bill to prohibit sex selection abortions.

What's next?

"In 2007, the United States spearheaded a U.N. resolution to condemn sex-selective abortion worldwide," said Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), the sponsor of the bill. "Yet, here in the land of the free and the home of the brave, we are the only advanced country left in the world that still doesn't restrict sex-selective abortion in any way."

At least in NYC you won't be able to buy a 20oz soda in a movie theater.

I think 99.999% of people reading this find the idea of sex-selective abortion disgusting...that said, how in the world could you prove (without the mother or father saying so...which they'd likely not do) that the abortion was sex-selective?

Maybe 99.999% of people reading this find sex selective abortion disgusting,
but I don't think 99.999% of the American people think it's disgusting.

If they did, there would be an outcry that would end it.
But there isn't, so it goes on.

How can you prove that it is going on?

Take a look at this recent video of a Planned Parenthood worker
helping someone who says that she wants to sex select.
The client doesn't want a girl.
The PP worker is happy to help.

BTW, do you think it's safe to say that most sex selective abortions are to abort girls?
If so, is that by definition a war on women? 

Don, the hotlink didn't work for me...but even if it was as bad I'd imagine, (just watched it) and even if 99.999% of Americans found it reprehensible...how can you pass a law that is just not enforceable?  As I asked, how can you tell someone is aborting based on the sex of the fetus?

,,,and yes, it's safe to say the overwhelming majority of sex-selective aborted fetuses are female.  Is it a war on women?  I guess you could call it that.

As for the video, they mentioned they went to over a hundred PP facilities.  It's interesting they only posted this one video...can we safely assume an overwhelming majority of PP offices do not have unethical "counselors?"  I would love to know if this "counselor" in particular was fired...as she should have been.