Gender at 7 weeks? (Abort Ment)

121 posts / 0 new
Last post
RebeccaA'07's picture
Joined: 11/19/07
Posts: 1628
Gender at 7 weeks? (Abort Ment)

http://www.parents.com/blogs/parents-news-now/2011/08/10/pregnancy/new-blood-test-can-tell-fetal-gender-at-7-weeks/

A study published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association has shown that a simple blood test–using maternal blood, not fetal blood drawn through an amniocentesis or other invasive procedure–can determine with 95 percent accuracy the gender of a fetus at 7 weeks of gestation.

On one hand, the tests can allow parents to screen for gender-linked genetic diseases. On the other hand, the test could be used to take what The New York Times calls “the more ethically controversial step of selecting the sex of their children.”

Do you think that finding the gender out so early is a GOOD thing? Would it increase the instances of gender selection?

RebeccaA'07's picture
Joined: 11/19/07
Posts: 1628

Finding out the gender, to some couples, is a huge thing. But I feel like we try to rush the pregnancy process, finding out the gender at 7 weeks seems super early. Most women are just finding out their pregnant! I do agree that this would most certainly increase gender selections in places where having a certain gender is vital to the family.

Joined: 12/10/05
Posts: 1681

I'm certain gender selection would increase with that sort of technology and for that reason I am opposed.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

I think that there is a possibility that gender selection might increase. Minimally so as the great majority of people do not treat abortion so flippantly.

With new science and technology comes new problems.....in general, there is nothing inherently wrong with knowing the gender early, therefore i don't think there is enough reason to justify banning it.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3187

"KimPossible" wrote:

I think that there is a possibility that gender selection might increase. Minimally so as the great majority of people do not treat abortion so flippantly.

With new science and technology comes new problems.....in general, there is nothing inherently wrong with knowing the gender early, therefore i don't think there is enough reason to justify banning it.

I agree 100%. Lots & lots of us like to know the gender and don't make decisions based on it, we just like to know!

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Yep, I agree with Kim and Laurie as well. That said, I am and forever will be firmly team green Smile

fuchsiasky's picture
Joined: 11/16/07
Posts: 955

Here they will not do a gender u/s until after the abortion cut off for reasons of preventing gender selection. I fully support that. I don't think the ability to find out so early is a good thing as I think it would increase gender selection.

fuchsiasky's picture
Joined: 11/16/07
Posts: 955

"KimPossible" wrote:

I think that there is a possibility that gender selection might increase. Minimally so as the great majority of people do not treat abortion so flippantly.

With new science and technology comes new problems.....in general, there is nothing inherently wrong with knowing the gender early, therefore i don't think there is enough reason to justify banning it.

I think it depends on where you are. If you live in a culture that equally values both genders than it isn't an issue. But for many it is. Here we have a very high immigrant population with many from India and China for whom gender selection is a real issue. I have heard that this is one of the reasons for not giving gender information before the abortion cut off.

Joined: 12/10/05
Posts: 1681

"fuchsiasky" wrote:

Here they will not do a gender u/s until after the abortion cut off for reasons of preventing gender selection. I fully support that. I don't think the ability to find out so early is a good thing as I think it would increase gender selection.

We live in the same area and I completely agree with you.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

"fuchsiasky" wrote:

I think it depends on where you are. If you live in a culture that equally values both genders than it isn't an issue. But for many it is. Here we have a very high immigrant population with many from India and China for whom gender selection is a real issue. I have heard that this is one of the reasons for not giving gender information before the abortion cut off.

Well, this is another problem i have. Is abortion ok? Or is it not ok? Do we leave it to the individual to decide when its warranted for them? Or do we not? Is it legal or is it not legal?

fuchsiasky's picture
Joined: 11/16/07
Posts: 955

"KimPossible" wrote:

Well, this is another problem i have. Is abortion ok? Or is it not ok? Do we leave it to the individual to decide when its warranted for them? Or do we not? Is it legal or is it not legal?

Here the medical community has decided that abortion for gender selection only is not ok. It is legal, but they certainly are not going to help parents select a gender. They have actually recently stopped allowing techs to tell parents the gender. You have to go for a separate private u/s to find out.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

"fuchsiasky" wrote:

Here the medical community has decided that abortion for gender selection only is not ok. It is legal, but they certainly are not going to help parents select a gender. They have actually recently stopped allowing techs to tell parents the gender. You have to go for a separate private u/s to find out.

Well i guess its off topic but thats a mixed message to me and i don't agree with it. Because what would make it wrong in that scenario that would not apply to other scenarios.

ETA: I guess if my country already had laws or rules in place that sent the message that doing it in this specific scenario is wrong (but all others early abortions are ok?) then it would be in line to not provide the information. That makes sense.

I just don't agree with the premise as a whole.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

Ya I don't get why gender selection is a problem for those who are pro-abortion. If abortion is allowed at the whim of the mother than why is one reason better than another? Personally I don't think any reason is good enough other than the child has a birth defect that is incompatible with life or the mother will possibly die.

fuchsiasky's picture
Joined: 11/16/07
Posts: 955

"KimPossible" wrote:

Well i guess its off topic but thats a mixed message to me and i don't agree with it. Because what would make it wrong in that scenario that would not apply to other scenarios.

ETA: I guess if my country already had laws or rules in place that sent the message that doing it in this specific scenario is wrong (but all others early abortions are ok?) then it would be in line to not provide the information. That makes sense.

I just don't agree with the premise as a whole.

I agree that it is a very mixed message. I think that part of the issue is that for most North America women gender selection is not part of the abortion considerations, whereas for women in some other cultures it is a big part of the consideration. So when these women come to Canada these issues arise. How do we balance law and culture? The thing is that in many of the countries from which we have a high immigrant population, abortion for gender selection is illegal. It is in India. It is a cultural practice that they are trying to overcome. So our practices actually fall more in line with their laws than our own. It is a messy situation, that is for sure!

Andy1784's picture
Joined: 09/18/08
Posts: 1372

My doctor used this on me last year with my daughter, it was correct but we didn't rely on the results until my CVS several weeks later confirmed the results. For me it could make a huge difference knowing so early because of a congenital condition that can be treated with medication. Boys are less susceptible to the problem so medication is only continued if the baby is female. We decided against it this time for personal issues but a gender test with 95% accuracy is really nice in this circumstance.

As far as general use goes, I'm not against it either. If the technology is out there I don't think it is the role of government to limit it, especially since abortion is legal. Call me naive, but I think even if there is gender selection, it won't make very dramatic changes to world demographics overall. I think the vast majority of those using the test would do so because they want to know if they're having a boy or girl. I'm not denying that it happens in some cultures and is more likely to happen, but that shouldn't be reason to limit everyone.

fuchsiasky's picture
Joined: 11/16/07
Posts: 955

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Ya I don't get why gender selection is a problem for those who are pro-abortion. If abortion is allowed at the whim of the mother than why is one reason better than another? Personally I don't think any reason is good enough other than the child has a birth defect that is incompatible with life or the mother will possibly die.

I am not pro abortion, but pro choice. The reason I have an issue with gender selection is that it isn't about the mother's choice for her own body, it is about a society's choice for her body and family make up. If a mother herself truly does not want to have a daughter then fine, don't. But if a culture says that females are not worthy of life that is the culture's decision and not the mother's. What if that mother really wants a daughter and is being bullied into an abortion by her family and culture? That is what I have a problem with.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

"fuchsiasky" wrote:

I agree that it is a very mixed message. I think that part of the issue is that for most North America women gender selection is not part of the abortion considerations, whereas for women in some other cultures it is a big part of the consideration. So when these women come to Canada these issues arise. How do we balance law and culture? The thing is that in many of the countries from which we have a high immigrant population, abortion for gender selection is illegal. It is in India. It is a cultural practice that they are trying to overcome. So our practices actually fall more in line with their laws than our own. It is a messy situation, that is for sure!

Well i can see how its a mess if people are coming to the country specifically to have a gender selection abortion, simply from an immigration issue.

What i don't understand is, if abortion is legal, why it is wrong to have one for the purpose of gender selection? I can see frowning upon it and personally having a distaste for it....i don't see how it can be specifically subject to exceptions. If its not a life that can be protected, i don't see how one can treat it as such under special circumstances.

And even if there is no actual law forbidding it, i think it doesn't make sense to build a community and society that is basically saying they think its wrong when fundamentally and legally they have taken a stance that it should be allowed.

Anyway, i don't know if this is too far off topic or not. My apologies if I'm derailing.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3187

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Ya I don't get why gender selection is a problem for those who are pro-abortion. If abortion is allowed at the whim of the mother than why is one reason better than another? Personally I don't think any reason is good enough other than the child has a birth defect that is incompatible with life or the mother will possibly die.

Because those of us who are pro-choice (not pro-abortion -- who could be pro-abortion?) don't think it should be about the whim of the mother. I'm not pro doing it on a whim, morally. Legally, I believe women need to have rights about their own bodies, but I don't view it as lightly as you seem to think people who share my opinion do.

What gender selection implies is that a woman will continue to get pregnant and abort her babies until she gets the gender she wants. That I am completely 100% against.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

"fuchsiasky" wrote:

I am not pro abortion, but pro choice. The reason I have an issue with gender selection is that it isn't about the mother's choice for her own body, it is about a society's choice for her body and family make up. If a mother herself truly does not want to have a daughter then fine, don't. But if a culture says that females are not worthy of life that is the culture's decision and not the mother's. What if that mother really wants a daughter and is being bullied into an abortion by her family and culture? That is what I have a problem with.

You can't stop that mentality that females are less valued in society by preventing it at the abortion stage. So you prevent the abortion that someone wanted....society still thinks the same way. Preventing the abortion doesn't tackle the fact that someone wanted it in the first place.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

Because those of us who are pro-choice (not pro-abortion -- who could be pro-abortion?) don't think it should be about the whim of the mother. I'm not pro doing it on a whim, morally. Legally, I believe women need to have rights about their own bodies, but I don't view it as lightly as you seem to think people who share my opinion do.

What gender selection implies is that a woman will continue to get pregnant and abort her babies until she gets the gender she wants. That I am completely 100% against.

Perhaps you are against it, but isn't that her own moral mistake to make now? We have legally said there is no life to protect at that point, so now on what grounds would we have to impose a moral code?

FTR, i know earlier in this thread you had said that you agreed with my original post. So i'm just presenting this argument as a rebuttal to this specific post.

fuchsiasky's picture
Joined: 11/16/07
Posts: 955

"KimPossible" wrote:

Well i can see how its a mess if people are coming to the country specifically to have a gender selection abortion, simply from an immigration issue.

What i don't understand is, if abortion is legal, why it is wrong to have one for the purpose of gender selection? I can see frowning upon it and personally having a distaste for it....i don't see how it can be specifically subject to exceptions. If its not a life that can be protected, i don't see how one can treat it as such under special circumstances.

And even if there is no actual law forbidding it, i think it doesn't make sense to build a community and society that is basically saying they think its wrong when fundamentally and legally they have taken a stance that it should be allowed.

Anyway, i don't know if this is too far off topic or not. My apologies if I'm derailing.

I don't think you are derailing!

It isn't that women are coming here for gender selection abortions, it is that we have a huge immigrant population that has brought over a culture that supports gender selection - which is illegal in many cases in their home country. It isn't something that Canadian culture finds acceptable so legal or not the medical community has a stance on it and tries to prevent it.

I think that if a woman wanted an abortion because she personally did not want a certain gender she could probably get one. Probably not in Vancouver though. And not if she was Indian or Asian. I know that sounds terrible, but it is true here.

fuchsiasky's picture
Joined: 11/16/07
Posts: 955

"KimPossible" wrote:

Perhaps you are against it, but isn't that her own moral mistake to make now? We have legally said there is no life to protect at that point, so now on what grounds would we have to impose a moral code?

FTR, i know earlier in this thread you had said that you agreed with my original post. So i'm just presenting this argument as a rebuttal to this specific post.

It has nothing to do with the legalities, but a conflict of cultures. It has created a messy situation for women in BC!

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

"fuchsiasky" wrote:

I don't think you are derailing!

It isn't that women are coming here for gender selection abortions, it is that we have a huge immigrant population that has brought over a culture that supports gender selection - which is illegal in many cases in their home country. It isn't something that Canadian culture finds acceptable so legal or not the medical community has a stance on it and tries to prevent it.

I think that if a woman wanted an abortion because she personally did not want a certain gender she could probably get one. Probably not in Vancouver though. And not if she was Indian or Asian. I know that sounds terrible, but it is true here.

Yeah that does sound terrible. What i see happening here is people resisting cultural change...even though it fits within their legal boundaries. (Speaking as the daughter of an immigrant, i guess that realization really rubs me the wrong way)

Joined: 12/10/05
Posts: 1681

I just had this discuss with a friend.

Feminists and womens rights groups have been the biggest supports for abortion and easing restrictions around abortion access; however, they strongly oppose gender selection where typically (in most cultures) it is the female baby that will be aborted. I find it very ironic. Like, Kim said, if society decides abort is legal than that has to be true in all circumstances.

Also, if the gender of a baby is able to be identified as early as 7 weeks, how does that effect the use of terms like embryo, products of conception, etc. Can there be a female/male embryo? I think it would have an impact on much of the terminology used in the medical field.

I also wonder if for those aborting for reasons other than gender selection (which in most regions is probably the minority), how knowing the sex of your baby/embryo/products of conception would impact that decision.

Joined: 01/18/06
Posts: 1626

"Potter75" wrote:

Yep, I agree with Kim and Laurie as well. That said, I am and forever will be firmly team green Smile

Ditto.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

"fuchsiasky" wrote:

It has nothing to do with the legalities, but a conflict of cultures. It has created a messy situation for women in BC!

Well it is tied to legality. Because it is a culture whos mentality does fit with your laws, yet the society is treating it like its not by restricting their access in what means possible without explicitly forbidding it.

fuchsiasky's picture
Joined: 11/16/07
Posts: 955

"KimPossible" wrote:

Yeah that does sound terrible. What i see happening here is people resisting cultural change...even though it fits within their legal boundaries.

Exactly! There are many people in this world fighting against gender selection and trying to overcome very old cultural values that may no longer have a place in their modern society. Since we have not had these issues things like abortion have freer access here than in places where gender selection is a big issue. But as this issue has crossed the pacific with the immigrants methods of dealing with it have been developed. They are trying to stop a practice that is, by Canadian cultural standards, uncomfortable (and wrong IMO) while still providing women freedom over their own bodies. How does one accomplish both? I think that the stance the medical communities have taken is a good one. If you really want gender identification early you can find it, but the doctors are not going to provide it until 18 weeks. It is a very grey mid-ground!

Andy1784's picture
Joined: 09/18/08
Posts: 1372

I agree that it is bad that societal/cultural pressures to abort a specific gender are bad, but any societal pressure to abort is bad and unfortunately exists plenty in our own culture. A girl I went to high school with got pregnant a couple of years out of college and her family was rather conservative. Since she was not married her mom told her that several family members would "not approve" and that she should consider not continuing with the pregnancy. She luckily told her to F-off and has a beautiful daughter. There are a few people in her extended family that don't speak to her still, 5 years later. While this story is sad to me, I don't feel it is a strong argument for taking away a woman's right to choose just as I don't feel that possible gender selection as a product of cultural pressure is a reason to deny women the gender test.

fuchsiasky's picture
Joined: 11/16/07
Posts: 955

The thing is that no one is going to force a doctor to perform an abortion if they are morally opposed. It is their choice to make as to whether they do them. If they won't another doctor will. Legal or not the doctors of BC have decided that they are morally opposed to gender selection abortions and do not choose to do them. It is their right and I support them in it.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

"fuchsiasky" wrote:

Exactly! There are many people in this world fighting against gender selection and trying to overcome very old cultural values that may no longer have a place in their modern society. Since we have not had these issues things like abortion have freer access here than in places where gender selection is a big issue. But as this issue has crossed the pacific with the immigrants methods of dealing with it have been developed. They are trying to stop a practice that is, by Canadian cultural standards, uncomfortable (and wrong IMO) while still providing women freedom over their own bodies. How does one accomplish both? I think that the stance the medical communities have taken is a good one. If you really want gender identification early you can find it, but the doctors are not going to provide it until 18 weeks. It is a very grey mid-ground!

I don't think preventing mothers who want to abort their female babies from doing so accomplishes anything. The mentality already exists in that individual and forcing her to have a child she does not want doesn't fix anything.

As a woman, i am all for changing a global view on the value of women in society. However i don't see how this changes anything and it stands in direct conflict with the philosophies behind protecting a woman's right to choose *for herself* if she should have an abortion or not.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

"fuchsiasky" wrote:

The thing is that no one is going to force a doctor to perform an abortion if they are morally opposed. It is their choice to make as to whether they do them. If they won't another doctor will. Legal or not the doctors of BC have decided that they are morally opposed to gender selection abortions and do not choose to do them. It is their right and I support them in it.

If its their right to refuse to perform an abortion. Why do you need to prevent the ability to find out the gender early?

Andy1784's picture
Joined: 09/18/08
Posts: 1372

Fuschia - Is not providing gender info to women that are less than 18 weeks along a practice that is law, strong recommendation from the government body that overlooks/controls the medical field, or simply what most practitioners choose to do? Are exceptions made in cases where it is relevant information to know for medical reasons?

fuchsiasky's picture
Joined: 11/16/07
Posts: 955

"KimPossible" wrote:

If its their right to refuse to perform an abortion. Why do you need to prevent the ability to find out the gender early?

They have decided to exercise the right to not perform gender abortions but preventing finding out the gender early. I am sure that they could refuse individual abortions, but who is going to say that it is because it is a girl?

There are still many ways to find out gender. A private u/s, this test etc. A woman here who really wants to abort a girl can find a way. They just are not going to find a doctor who will tell them the gender and then abort it for them. They are going to have to find out the gender and then state an alternate reason for the abortion.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"fuchsiasky" wrote:

The thing is that no one is going to force a doctor to perform an abortion if they are morally opposed. It is their choice to make as to whether they do them. If they won't another doctor will. Legal or not the doctors of BC have decided that they are morally opposed to gender selection abortions and do not choose to do them. It is their right and I support them in it.

And knowing this, I'm sure no women tell their Dr's (who DO perform abortions) that they are aborting solely based on sex. They may make rules that help them sleep better at night, but at the end of the day the reason anyone may abort is their own and these Dr's are surely providing some women with gender based abortions.

I think that the idea of a government intentionally withholding medical information from it's citizens because they don't trust their citizens with knowledge that is their right is creepy.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

"fuchsiasky" wrote:

They have decided to exercise the right to not perform gender abortions but preventing finding out the gender early. I am sure that they could refuse individual abortions, but who is going to say that it is because it is a girl?

There are still many ways to find out gender. A private u/s, this test etc. A woman here who really wants to abort a girl can find a way. They just are not going to find a doctor who will tell them the gender and then abort it for them. They are going to have to find out the gender and then state an alternate reason for the abortion.

So what is this refusal to provide gender information actually supposed to do then? Just make it harder to do something that the govt. says is actually ok to do? And it doesn't even actually prevent a doctor from doing a gender selection abortion.

I guess i can sympathize with the problem of facing the issue of doing something you are morally oppose to.

I guess i just take issue with the logic of being morally opposed enough to gender selection abortion to do something about it, but not abortions for other reasons.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

And I should also add that all this aside, while i can support individual doctors making the decision to refuse to provide this information (even if i disagree with their logic)....i don't think there would be any grounds to legally forbid the practice of doing so.

Not saying anyone said there was grounds for that. The most i saw was a general "I'm against it"

fuchsiasky's picture
Joined: 11/16/07
Posts: 955

"Andy1784" wrote:

Fuschia - Is not providing gender info to women that are less than 18 weeks along a practice that is law, strong recommendation from the government body that overlooks/controls the medical field, or simply what most practitioners choose to do? Are exceptions made in cases where it is relevant information to know for medical reasons?

It looks like it is hospital/Health Ministry practice.

Recently the province has started charging to find out (I said earlier that they wouldn't tell but I just searched and I was wrong). The article says they would not give gender info previously, but they did for the 20 week for my DD.

"Expectant parents in British Columbia will have to pay $50 to find out the gender of their fetus during routine ultrasound examinations, the Minister of Healthy Living Ida Chong confirmed on Tuesday morning.

The previous policy was for hospitals to refuse to tell parents the gender of their fetus unless it was medically necessary. But under the new policy, parents who pay $50 can be told the gender by their doctor after the ultrasound."

later in the article:

"The gender will only be revealed to parents after the fetus is older than 20 weeks, even if it is determined during earlier ultrasounds, because disclosing the gender of a younger fetus violates policies intended to prevent parents from aborting fetuses because of their gender."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/05/11/bc-vancouver-ultrasound-gender-fee.html

fuchsiasky's picture
Joined: 11/16/07
Posts: 955

I found the official position:

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
Fetal Sex Determination solely for Gender Selection

The College endorses the recommendation of the Commission on New Reproductive Technology (the "Commission") that fetal gender determination for non‐medical purposes is unethical.
The Commission states that ‘sexing’:**
(a)**departs from the major goal of prenatal diagnosis, namely, the prevention of serious
genetic disease, and thus is not medically indicated;**
(b)**violates the principle of equity between males and females;**
(c) sets a precedent for other ‘eugenic’ decisions that are socially repugnant; and
(d) employs costly and scarce medical resources for a private purpose.

Fetal gender can be determined by a variety of diagnostic procedures including ultrasound, chorionic villous sampling, amniocentesis and hematological tests.**It is recognized that some parents wish to know the gender of their unborn baby and that routine or required prenatal examinations may provide that information.**However, it is also recognized that fetal gender information is misused by some and that the recognition of an undesired gender of a fetus may lead to the termination of the pregnancy.**As concluded by the Commission, the College would agree that this is socially repugnant, and it is unethical for physicians to facilitate such action.

This policy is also in agreement with the Statement on Gender Selection, as published by the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada in 2007, which states:**"The Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada believes that medical technologies and/or testing for the sole purpose of gender identification in pregnancy should not be used to accommodate societal preferences."

https://www.cpsbc.ca/files/u6/Fetal-Sex-Determination.pdf

Joined: 12/10/05
Posts: 1681

"Potter75" wrote:

And knowing this, I'm sure no women tell their Dr's (who DO perform abortions) that they are aborting solely based on sex. They may make rules that help them sleep better at night, but at the end of the day the reason anyone may abort is their own and these Dr's are surely providing some women with gender based abortions.

I think that the idea of a government intentionally withholding medical information from it's citizens because they don't trust their citizens with knowledge that is their right is creepy.

I agree no one probably tells the doctor that it what their intentions are, but the doctor will know (or make the assumption) based on the family history and adherence to traditional cultural values (which in many cases are against abortion typically). Plus, why would they request an early u/s and then book an abortion, if not because of the "wrong" sex?

By making it difficult to find out the sex, it makes it difficult to abort based on sex.

fuchsiasky's picture
Joined: 11/16/07
Posts: 955

"kris_w" wrote:

I agree no one probably tells the doctor that it what their intentions are, but the doctor will know (or make the assumption) based on the family history and adherence to traditional cultural values (which in many cases are against abortion typically). Plus, why would they request an early u/s and then book an abortion, if not because of the "wrong" sex?

By making it difficult to find out the sex, it makes it difficult to abort based on sex.

Exactly. It is perfect solution? No. But it is the best that can be done in a very messy situation.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3187

"KimPossible" wrote:

Perhaps you are against it, but isn't that her own moral mistake to make now? We have legally said there is no life to protect at that point, so now on what grounds would we have to impose a moral code?

FTR, i know earlier in this thread you had said that you agreed with my original post. So i'm just presenting this argument as a rebuttal to this specific post.

I suppose I am not very logical about this. Morality vs. legal rights is where I slip up. I suppose you can't really start drawing lines. Morally, though, I do have lines. It's a tough one.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"kris_w" wrote:

I agree no one probably tells the doctor that it what their intentions are, but the doctor will know (or make the assumption) based on the family history and adherence to traditional cultural values (which in many cases are against abortion typically). Plus, why would they request an early u/s and then book an abortion, if not because of the "wrong" sex?

By making it difficult to find out the sex, it makes it difficult to abort based on sex.

Who knows why? Because her husband left her? Because they got cancer? Because they lost their job? Are you seriously stating that a Dr will assume that any and all brown or yellor or red people in Canada who seek abortions are doing so for the purposes of sex selections, so would deny them one? Regardless of what a dr "knows", if he provides abortion is he able to decide if their reasons for aborting are "good enough" in Canada, or does he have to do the abortion? Can they turn away a patient because of racial stereotypes?

I mean, what I think that you are saying is that if a person who isn't white wants a legal abortion in Canada they could be denied it just based on assumptions as to motive? And this is not overt racism how exactly?

fuchsiasky's picture
Joined: 11/16/07
Posts: 955

"Potter75" wrote:

Who knows why? Because her husband left her? Because they got cancer? Because they lost their job? Are you seriously stating that a Dr will assume that any and all brown or yellor or red people in Canada who seek abortions are doing so for the purposes of sex selections, so would deny them one? Regardless of what a dr "knows", if he provides abortion is he able to decide if their reasons for aborting are "good enough" in Canada, or does he have to do the abortion? Can they turn away a patient because of racial stereotypes?

I mean, what I think that you are saying is that if a person who isn't white wants a legal abortion in Canada they could be denied it just based on assumptions as to motive? And this is not overt racism how exactly?

The truth is that if an east indian or asian woman wanted a gender u/s and then an abortion she would be questioned. A white woman may not face the same questions. It is racism. And it sucks.

Joined: 12/10/05
Posts: 1681

"Potter75" wrote:

Who knows why? Because her husband left her? Because they got cancer? Because they lost their job? Are you seriously stating that a Dr will assume that any and all brown or yellor or red people in Canada who seek abortions are doing so for the purposes of sex selections, so would deny them one? Regardless of what a dr "knows", if he provides abortion is he able to decide if their reasons for aborting are "good enough" in Canada, or does he have to do the abortion? Can they turn away a patient because of racial stereotypes?

I mean, what I think that you are saying is that if a person who isn't white wants an abortion in Canada they will be denied it? And this is not overt racism how exactly?

To the bolded. No, that isn't what I'm saying at all or what is happening. I'm saying if someone finds out they are pregnant, requests a gender determining u/s ASAP, and then decides to abort (regardless of the color of their skin) they are mostly likely aborting because the baby is the wrong sex.

Race and culture only come into play because gender selection is largely a cultural practice.

What does the baby's gender have to do with losing a job or separating from your spouse or getting cancer?

Joined: 12/10/05
Posts: 1681

"fuchsiasky" wrote:

The truth is that if an east indian or asian woman wanted a gender u/s and then an abortion she would be questioned. A white woman may not face the same questions. It is racism. And it sucks.

I actually disagree that it is racism. I believe a white woman who did the same thing would also be questioned.

It isn't as if only white people are allow to find out the sex or anything. No one finds out the sex, no one aborts based on the sex. Very equitable.

RebeccaA'07's picture
Joined: 11/19/07
Posts: 1628

I would hope a doctor would be concerned if a woman requested a u/s, found out that the baby was healthy, and then asked for termination...especially if it were late enough in a pregnancy to find out the sex via ultrasound.

Interesting about the Canada laws regarding such procedures. Never knew!

fuchsiasky's picture
Joined: 11/16/07
Posts: 955

"kris_w" wrote:

To the bolded. No, that isn't what I'm saying at all or what is happening. I'm saying if someone finds out they are pregnant, requests a gender determining u/s ASAP, and then decides to abort (regardless of the color of their skin) they are mostly likely aborting because the baby is the wrong sex.

Race and culture only come into play because gender selection is largely a cultural practice.

What does the baby's gender have to do with losing a job or separating from your spouse or getting cancer?

I can see there being some racism in this issue especially on the lower mainland (hongcouver?). I have heard some pretty nasty things said of the immigrant population and I think there are some big assumptions that get made. I think that a doctor meeting with a white couple might be less cautious than if meeting with someone for whom gender selection is a cultural practice. It think that we are having some real issues integrating with the immigrant populations and this is where these problems arise. We are less accepting of some cultural practices that they are not willing to leave at in their former country. I hope that we can figure this out cause Vancouver is a beautifully diverse city and these problems could be resolved if choose.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"kris_w" wrote:

To the bolded. No, that isn't what I'm saying at all or what is happening. I'm saying if someone finds out they are pregnant, requests a gender determining u/s ASAP, and then decides to abort (regardless of the color of their skin) they are mostly likely aborting because the baby is the wrong sex.

Race and culture only come into play because gender selection is largely a cultural practice.

What does the baby's gender have to do with losing a job or separating from your spouse or getting cancer?

The babies gender has nothing to do with losing a job or separating from a spouse or getting ill. They are alternate reasons that a person might be aborting, even if they are a brown or red person who found out the gender. To assume otherwise simply because of the persons skin color is racist.

I thought that Fuscia said that private ultrasound was an option, as was paying an extra $50 to find out your own medical information? How can you say that no one aborts based on gender if that is true?

fuchsiasky's picture
Joined: 11/16/07
Posts: 955

"kris_w" wrote:

I actually disagree that it is racism. I believe a white woman who did the same thing would also be questioned.

It isn't as if only white people are allow to find out the sex or anything. No one finds out the sex, no one aborts based on the sex. Very equitable.

Fair. The policy itself is not racist as long as it is applied equally.

Joined: 12/10/05
Posts: 1681

"fuchsiasky" wrote:

I can see there being some racism in this issue especially on the lower mainland (hongcouver?). I have heard some pretty nasty things said of the immigrant population and I think there are some big assumptions that get made. I think that a doctor meeting with a white couple might be less cautious than if meeting with someone for whom gender selection is a cultural practice. It think that we are having some real issues integrating with the immigrant populations and this is where these problems arise. We are less accepting of some cultural practices that they are not willing to leave at in their former country. I hope that we can figure this out cause Vancouver is a beautifully diverse city and these problems could be resolved if choose.

There are lots of issues around immigration that need to be resolved before they grow into bigger problems.

Vancouver is a wonderful city. Smile

fuchsiasky's picture
Joined: 11/16/07
Posts: 955

"RebeccaA'07" wrote:

I would hope a doctor would be concerned if a woman requested a u/s, found out that the baby was healthy, and then asked for termination...especially if it were late enough in a pregnancy to find out the sex via ultrasound.

Interesting about the Canada laws regarding such procedures. Never knew!

I don't think this is such an issue in other parts of the country. It might just be BC - or parts of BC.

Pages