Abort Girls in Canada?

By  | March 6, 2012 | 72 Comments | Filed under: Editorial, Uncategorized

An editorial in the Canadian Medical Journal, (a publication that my doctor endorses), shed light on something many may see as an unsavoury cultural practice.

It seems that Asian Canadians have a blatant preference for boy over girl babies.

The editor Mr. R. Kale, informed the medical profession that upon getting the baby’s sexual identity at 20 weeks, many women were making a decision to abort the fetus if it was female.

The journal recommended that the baby’s sex not be disclosed until between 22-30 weeks, thereby making it more difficult to abort.

Mr. Kale, spokesman for the Canadian Medical Journal, went on to say that equality and diversity are both Canadian values …but, so are women’s rights.

 So, here is the conundrum…In Canada, an abortion is a woman’s personal choice. Is the preference for a boy also a question of choice for Canadian women? Is that something that women will fight for, the right to chose boys over girls?

Does the cultural preference of some Asian Canadians for boys enhance a women’s freedom to choose…. or should we as a society protect female fetuses from sexual discrimination in the womb?

Have your say.

 

About 

Tags:

72 Responses to Abort Girls in Canada?

  1. Scot Ferguson-Barber March 6, 2012 at 9:30 pm

    Boy Hags, this should open a can of worms.
    I’m staying out of it. (For now)

  2. Facetious Lee March 6, 2012 at 11:40 pm

    I could be wrong, but I think that choosing a boy over a girl is a problem mostly in China where there is a limit on the number of children a family may have.
    In Canada, of course there is no limit, so there is no “need” to choose boys over girls.
    I’m sure there is not enough room in heaven for everyone on the earth, so we don’t need to worry about accomadating everyone who kill their children. They will roast.

  3. Scot Ferguson-Barber March 7, 2012 at 11:33 am

    Speaking of roasting, I’ll bet this one has Newsfan just spinning on a spit! (Margaret and Bill, you both came to the same conclusion by a different route.)

  4. Hags March 7, 2012 at 4:38 pm

    I gave this conundrun to my daughter, a local eductator and pro-choice advocate. She is truly stumped over this one.
    I’m just glad that the Citizen allows discussion of ‘taboo’ subjects. The mainstream media would stay away from this one for sure.

  5. newsfan March 8, 2012 at 10:05 am

    I’m certainly not being roasted as much as you have been lately Scot. It seems you have made a lot of people unhappy in cyberworld.

    Hags, you are a little late with this debate, as it has been discussed elsewhere – always leading to the pro-abortionists running to a moderator or publisher crying “newsfan is picking on me”.

    The pro-abortion movement is now advocating infanticide OUTSIDE OF THE WOMB, with another, new, upbeat term called “after birth abortion”. Yes, that’s right. The baby is murdered AFTER the mother has given birth as stated in an article published – get this – in the Journal of Medical ETHICS, authored by Francesca Minerva and Alberto Giubilini.

    Of course the vital reason for this new way of killing children is “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”
    and
    “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life.”

    So, there you have it Scot. The new – scientific and medical of course – definition might even pose a risk for some “adults” who post on these boards. Killing kids due to sexual preference seems to be relatively old hat now, to those who are used to crushing the skulls of infants and ripping their limbs apart. This must be less messy I suppose.

    By the way, the state of Virginia has passed a new, mandatory pre-abortion ultra-sound mandate. In fact, the law is popping up on the radar in other states. It seems that mothers tend to want to have their baby if they have a chance to actually see him/her. Of course those who are pro-abortion are opposing it. Funny isn’t it. They don’t want to see the baby ripped to shreds after an abortion and don’t want to see the baby alive. I guess they already have enough “choice”.

  6. Hags March 8, 2012 at 10:15 am

    Newsie, I wasn’t late in writing it but late in posting it. The Citizen can only handle so much from a noted provacateur.
    Anyway, I think women will stay away from this one. It surely poses a dilema, making me glad I’ll never have to choose.
    P.S. Still the star at the Advocat?

  7. newsfan March 8, 2012 at 10:50 am

    Nahhh. I’m a rebel there also Hags. Maggie B. is the hero there – A “SAVIOR” even – didn’t you know? So much so that the owner won’t let her go. Then there is that other guy Tom Von Fanny…or Tom Vundies..I can’t remember. He speaks in tongues kind of. Apparently “everything is lining up” over there somehow. Big! Really Big! Going to be Mayanic I tell you. People are dying all over the place and the city apparently knows it and is responsible for it. (whispering) Hags, don’t drink the water.

  8. Bill Kirby March 12, 2012 at 11:17 pm

    Let me start by saying that I think aborting a pregnancy for gendre preference reasons is appalling. Although there may be some living in Canada who on a cultural level feel that a male child is prefered to a female child. In Canada it is very difficult to know the gendre of a fetus with any real accuracy and still have a legal abortion.

    Here are some facts:

    The earliest an ultrasound can possibly determine the gender of a fetus is 12 weeks. Most doctors won’t attempt to determine the gender until 16-20 weeks. Unlike amniocentesis, ultrasound genderizing isn’t an exact science. Depending on the way the baby lays, it can be difficult to see the genitals. Some radiologists will influence the baby to move into a different position to catch a glimpse, or you could consume something containing sugar to make the fetus more active. Amniocentesis, if you have to have one done, determines the gender through chromosomal analysis and this is fool-proof.
    An amniocentesis is a diagnostic test usually done between 15 to 20 weeks of pregnancy. This test involves removing small amount of amniotic fluid (the fluid surrounding a developing fetus) from the uterus. The amniotic fluid can be tested to determine if the fetus has certain kinds of birth defects.
    Test results are generally available in a few days to a few weeks.
    Legal abortions cannot be performed in Canada after 20 weeks with some medical exceptions up to 29 weeks.

    In Canada there is no real need to prefer on gendre over another as we do not have a population imbalance nor do we have the population numbers that would require restricting the number of births.

    Amniocentesis is typically performed when there is the possibility of genetic or other serious complications associated with the development of the fetus and health impact on the mother.

    The assertion that pro-choice is advocating infanticide is absurd.

    The notion of restricting when a parent can find out the gendre is inappropriate. Why should the state determine when we can receive information about our personal health and that of our family to be.

    Fully understanding the reasons for the proposal is it not better to address the root cause on a cultural level rather than restrict everyone?

  9. Hags March 13, 2012 at 9:52 am

    Prickly Bill,or should I say Dr. Bill…I am not casting judgement..merely stating the ‘facts’ according to the editor of the Canadian Medical Journal.
    The conundrum is however that many women do not want this ‘service’ available in order to abort a girl but keep a boy. So are there limits on a woman’s right to choose? That is the question, dear boy.
    BTW, nice to see you slumming it at the Citizen…and I just wonder if Hurstie will out you as a liberal hack when you continue to go after Leone in the Times…or shall I out you? Anyway Bill xoxo always.
    P.S according to the CMJ, it’s not there ‘may’ be some cultures who abort for sexual preferece…there ARE some aborting for sexual preference.

  10. newsfan March 13, 2012 at 12:17 pm

    “Let me start by saying that I think aborting a pregnancy for gendre preference reasons is appalling.” Really, Billy? What of the 3% to 4% that are said to be born gay or lesbian? Is that appalling to you also?

    “The assertion that pro-choice is advocating infanticide is absurd.” Really, Billy? In England and Wales it is of deep concern, not that it may be happening, it is happening.

  11. Hags March 13, 2012 at 1:40 pm

    Guys,…if you really are guys, let’s call a truce and see if the girls will jump in on this one.
    Like I said before, my daughter believes in the ‘right to choose’ but, not if it involves the ending of a pregnancy because the fetus is female. In her mind therefore, there are limits to ‘choice’. Anyone women out there like to weigh in?

  12. les March 13, 2012 at 1:49 pm

    Prickly everyone.
    This is not so much a pro-choice or pro-life, men versus women, medical, ethical, religious or otherwise issue in my view.
    I feel it is a ” cultural ” issue due to the world blending together through immigration. It’s the new ( 50 year ) normal. All countries face the same problem.
    We have visible cultural preferences/ideals/religions all being brought into Canada which are forcing the governments of the day to make choices of tolerance on behalf of their citizens new and old.
    I use the example of the Turban in the RCMP issue many years ago. Government caved and allowed a 5 year employees demand, that by not wearing his turban infringed on his religious rights. Huh!. When he signed up 5 years earlier, he wore the appropriate attire as provided to him by the RCMP. It wasn’t much of an issue. The government had no right to change the rules for one individual and set a serious precedent but did.
    I think the country is going to have to make a stand and quickly and clearly decide if it is in fact a nation, has a constitution, has long standing principles and standards, ethics in place or if it’s going to continue along to bend and stretch like a yoga instructor to the whims and financial donations from those who the expect to support them to win the next election.
    Once that is settled, I think the rest of the issues fall into line. Sort of.
    We already everything in place in Canada, it wasn’t born yesterday.

  13. Bill Kirby March 13, 2012 at 1:59 pm

    Thats fine Jimmy, I did not say you were being judgemental but if you feel you need to denfend yourself as being such go right ahead. As for being Liberal, well….if it was not for liberalism you would have nothing to aspire to. Oh and I can’t forget newsfan, seems as if he is for selective abortion after all. If only he could figure out who was having a child that will be gay. He may want to ask about the hugs and kisses you sent me. Regarding Leone, if the shoe fits wear it. Also to newsfan, Hags is talking about Canada not England and Wales.

    I am indeed pro choice when it comes to abortion, that does not mean that I agree with every choice for an abortion. I think that people of all ages have a responsibility to themselves and a child they will bring into the world.

    Ultra sounds and amniocentesis are beneficial technologies that have become common place. They afford us the luxury of knowing with reasonable certainty in the case of ultra sound and absolute certainty in the case of amniocentesis the gendre of the fetus. Unfortunately, this can lead to a rather poor choice.

    The other unfortunate aspect of this conversation is the inability for people like Hags and newsfan to appreciate common ground when it appears. Resorting instead to name calling and attacks on the person. It is a shame that the ability to defend your position is so rooted in ideology that all you can do is make it personal instead of logical.

    Let me ask you both, assuming you have children, is one of your children cam home said they were pregnant and was going to have an abortion despite knowing how you feel about it. Would you disown them? or would you still love them even if you disagree with their choice?

    As I said before, I don’t agree with every choice for an abortion but I do agree with having a choice.

  14. newsfan March 13, 2012 at 2:16 pm

    Doesn’t that fence rail hurt your arse after a while Billy?

  15. Hags March 13, 2012 at 2:16 pm

    Bill, you obviously agree with Mr. Kale that there are limits to ‘choice’….as you’ve clearly stated in your last sentence. Wonder if women agree that there are limits to choice as you’ve said.
    And Bill, suck it up…if you dish it out you gotta be able to take it!
    Last, I am not asking if you agree with me but do you agree or disagree with Mr. Kale?

  16. Bill Kirby March 13, 2012 at 2:41 pm

    Sorry guys, not as much fun for you when people bit back. I’ll try to be dimwitted for you, make it less challenging. OK? Feel better now?

  17. newsfan March 13, 2012 at 3:53 pm

    Are you kidding me Bill? We went back and forth for days on this subject already. I do find it amusing for you to invoke your own morality into the debate. That’s new. I believe we do not have debates about abortion in Canada. If we did we would be discussing the moral and scientific aspects of the issue. Instead, all that is ever discussed is “choice” with no regard to the individual life of the child.

  18. Thomas Vann March 13, 2012 at 9:59 pm

    You do have a point there Mrs. newsfan. l’m so glad to see you back into the sun.

  19. Thomas Vann March 13, 2012 at 10:09 pm

    My goodness newsfan your on a bit of a fall trying to take me on with your lack of knowledge on certain topics on the other site. You don’t seem to ever answer any of the questions l put forth. l will put up $500.00 that if you sit down to a debate with me my dear your $500.00 will be in my pocket by the end of the debate. So, what do you think dear, will that be crow your having tonight or chicken? Let me know asap please since l shall fit you in my friend. Love Thomas.

  20. newsfan March 14, 2012 at 7:53 am

    Taking a fall? Take you on? What topics? What other site? I can’t distinguish your questions from your sarcasm Tom, like this post. Take your $500 and contribute it to the Sierra Club to help secure Clayton Ruby to help fight Debbie and your “cause”.

  21. Hags March 14, 2012 at 8:49 am

    Kids, kids….can’t we all get along in harmony and good-will? Last week, someone wrote a column in a local paper about being kind and objective when we post…he also went on to add that one should re-read the post before sending, so as not to cause offense? Now, let me think, who was that guy again? Bueller, Bueller, anyone?

  22. Hags March 14, 2012 at 8:52 am

    Sccot, it would be a good idea to archive this thread. I really wanted the girls’ thoughts on this one…but they simply don’t want to jump in…so, let’s end it.

  23. Margaret Barr March 14, 2012 at 10:33 am

    Stop right there! I’m jumping in. First off, YES! YES! I’m pro-choice, but with some limits. Certainly one of those ‘limits’ would be an abortion because a pregnant woman doesn’t want a child of a specific gender. Bill (and Les) are right..that is a “cultural” issue NOT a “pro-choice” issue.

    As for newsfan’s (usual)dramatic and false claims that, “The pro-abortion movement is now advocating infanticide OUTSIDE OF THE WOMB’- well, that’s more of his complete and utter B.S. There may be a couple of medical philosophers who endorse that shuttering idea, but the pro-choice movement does not! I think I’m in a better position to say what the “pro-choice” movement endorses than is a known staffer of the right to life movement.

    It’s typical of the rtl movement to use inflammtory language to attempt to get their message across. Unfortunately (for them) that type of ‘message’ only works for those who are already anti-abortion. That sort of rhetoric will never work to change the mind of an intelligent woman (or man). It makes women even more determined to hold on to any ‘rights’ they may already have; whether they choose to exercise those rights or not.

    To say that it’s ‘straddling the fence’ (if one is pro-choice, but with limits) is nothing more than another one of the radical fundamentalist’s hardright views that causes so much divisiveness and so little positive movement towards laws that allow (but regulate) abortion. Some of you men who have nothing better to do than sit at your computer all day preaching how ‘immoral’ we pro-choice folks are, should find another ‘hobby’. You are completely ineffective….

  24. Facetioue Lee March 14, 2012 at 10:48 am

    Margaret, shuttering or shuddering?

  25. Margaret Barr March 14, 2012 at 12:14 pm

    “shuddering”. lol

  26. newsfan March 14, 2012 at 1:13 pm

    This is more than a cultural issue, it is more an issue of eugenics. Selective abortion is being done for many reasons other than gender preference.A couple in Portland, Oregon was awarded $2.9 million for the “wrongful birth” of their daughter born with Down syndrome which they successfully argued the doctors should have discovered in pre-natal testing and that they were medically negligent for not doing so.

    After-abortion, like partial-abortion and abortion began with bio-ethicists discussion articles in medical journals. It would be highly advantageous for those who are pro-abortion to be able to kill a child that is discovered to be socially unacceptable after he/she is born. The argument being, of course, just like the unborn child isn’t human, neither is the new born infant. Such a decision would have saved the good doctors in Oregon $2.9 million.

    Abortion is not only opposed by men. A significant number of women oppose abortion also. To suggest otherwise is a misrepresentation of the many women whose voices cannot be heard. When people actually understand abortion and witness for themselves the ugliness of it, they often decide against it. That is why the pro-abortion movement is so determined for women not to have an ultra-sound or see pictures of children in the womb or children who have been aborted. It’s more about protecting their choice than killing a baby.

    Maggie B., spare us the insults and ritual defamation garbage and discuss the point of the article.

  27. Hags March 14, 2012 at 1:51 pm

    Margaret, thanks for your point of view; my daughter sees it the same way you do…that in the case Mr. Kale mentioned…there should be limits to choice.
    Anyway, the cutural ‘preference’ does impact ‘choice’.
    I doubt however that there will be a bill stating what is and is not an acceptable choice for a woman to make….so again we’ll just have to muddle through.
    Again, glad to see you have the courage to weigh in on a difficult one Margaret.
    Last, Mr. Kale does describe the issue as one of culture…but as I said, it impacts ‘choice’.
    And in a perfect world, this issue would be left to women only.

  28. newsfan March 14, 2012 at 2:59 pm

    Hags: “glad to see you have the courage to weigh in on a difficult one….” You got to be jokin’ right? Seriously, you didn’t snicker while you wrote that? Huh? Come on! Hahahaha!!

  29. Hags March 14, 2012 at 3:25 pm

    I think that (we) men should give it a rest and see if any women want to give us their opinions….and if they don’t, then that’s ok.
    In my ‘dimwitted’ way of thinking, I value more what women, not men, say in this matter.

  30. Margaret Barr March 14, 2012 at 3:35 pm

    Once again, newfan, you try to speak for pro-choice, when you haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about. Pro-choice people do not oppose women seeing photos of aborted fetus’ or of having an ultra sound. Since when did you become an expert on what pro-choice folks are about? We are about open discussion, unlike the dogmatic religious fanatics like yourself, who can never see anything except, well, blind faith. If you ever want to ‘convert’ we heathen pro-choice people you better learn to stop your type of nonsense and start talking facts, not Biblical scripture and faith-based ‘rationale’..

    Hags, in a perfect world we would have laws that allow pro-choice, but only up to a certain point in the pregnancy, unless there is a life and death matter in the later stages. That’s my take anyway. Politicians are afraid of all sides of this issue. If they institute such laws, anti-abortionists will scream it’s not enough and pro-choicers will scream it’s too much. I scream ‘pro-choice’ to a point, but the ‘no law’ we have is far too broad IMHO.

    When I was running for the Conservative nomination some asked if I would support delisting abortion as an OHIP covered procedure. I said ‘no'(actually I talked ‘around’ it). The only reason I said I (sort of) wouldn’t is because I was running under the PC banner and Hudak already said there would be no changes put forth on the issue. I soon discovered that if one runs for a ‘party’ one must follow the party-line (which is why I will never run for ANY party again..learned my lesson). But, in truth, personally, I don’t think abortion should be funded by the taxpayer, unless there is proven financial hardship for the woman. There are exceptions to every rule, of course, but I do think we need some ‘rules’. I would gladly be one of those carrying the torch for delisting OHIP coverage for abortion and everything else that isn’t a medical necessity; except no one wants to talk about necessary and unnecessary expenditures when it comes to abortion. They mostly want to talk about ‘morality’ and God’s Will and who is better than whom. I’m simply not into the ‘holier than thou’ stuff.

  31. Margaret Barr March 14, 2012 at 3:36 pm

    Hags! “Dimwitted” you are not. Reasonable is more the word for you.

  32. Hags March 14, 2012 at 3:47 pm

    Wow, you say I’m reasonable, Newsie thinks I’m a bleeding heart and Bill thinks I’m somewhere to the right of Atilla the Hun…..damn!,who the hell am I anyway? I’m clearly confused.

  33. newsfan March 14, 2012 at 4:07 pm

    Maggie B., you can call me all the names you can lay your tongue to. The faith of Christians has been under attack for over 2,000 years and your two cents worth isn’t going to make any difference. Bring in the lions and furnaces if you want.

    In regards to this debate many issues have been brought forward in addition to the death of a child. The adverse effects on women’s health due to abortion; the economic costs to our society in several ways; the erosion of our cultural heritage due to the demographic shift to immigration due to our declining birth rate and on and on and on. These are negative consequences of abortion that provinces like Quebec and countries like Russia are trying to reverse.

    Attacking Christians over their opposition is silly. Virtually every religion and numerous cultures oppose killing the unborn, not just Christianity. However, that has not been the gist of my point of view as much as the consequences stated earlier.

    And today you have moderated your opinion somewhat and admitted to talking around the issue in the past. Well hallelujah!

  34. Sandra Hill March 15, 2012 at 8:19 am

    Notice it’s mostly men voicing their opinion on this topic

    By playing on human emotion you are trying to rope in supporters who even may feel quite differently then them about sexuality. Anti-Choice at its highest levels is really anti-woman and anti-sex.

    The efforts of some to control people, be it for power, money or their own personal predilections always comes down to controlling women and controlling sex. Both, interlocking as they are, present the wild card

    The people, who protest abortion and even birth control, are among the same ones who rail against the government getting into their private lives.

  35. Hags March 15, 2012 at 9:18 am

    Thanks for the comment Sandra. I’d still like your views on whether ‘choice’ extends to ending pregnancy because the fetus is a girl. That’s the pith of the matter.
    You can read Mr. Kales full commentary on the issue on-line….He clearly states that ending a pregnancy because the fetus is female is sexism and should not be allowed in Canada. So shall we put the same value on a female feuts as a male?…Like I said, this is a tough one.
    Last, I think girls have a problem responding to this one because the heart of the matter implies the errosion of your right to choose.
    It would help if we could stick to topic and leave behind the always simmering pro/anti abortion spats that take over the thread.
    In my way of thinking there are two postitions for a pro-choicer to take in this matter…1) ending a pregnancy because the fetus is a girl is simply a matter of choice and therefore allowable or 2)ending a female pregnancy should not be permitted…thereby limiting womans right to choose….BTW, #2 I would guess,is most women’s choice…but it’s just a guess.
    Anyway, thanks for jumping in.

  36. newsfan March 15, 2012 at 9:48 am

    Here are some past and current comments from women on this issue. Of course it took a man to find them. Some of which dispel the “BS and drama” theories by one poster:

    Several Canadian abortion-rights groups have affirmed their opposition to any restrictions, including the pro-choice Women’s Federation of Quebec- which opposes any kind of ban or restriction on sex-based abortion – the Canadian Federation for Sexual Health, the Canadian arm of the National Abortion Federation, and Action Canada for Population and Development.

    Here’s what a feminist of over 20 years ago predicited – “It’s a measure of feminist fanaticism that only recently have pro-choice activists announced their unwillingness to defend abortion as a method of sex selection,” wrote Martha Bayles in the April 1990 edition of The Atlantic Monthly. “Perhaps it occurred to them that sex-preferential practices have historically favored the male … If this was their reasoning, then it’s time to stand back and watch feminism collide with itself.”

    Joyce Arthur, executive director of Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, said it would, indeed, be hypocritical for a pro-choice group to support restrictions on a woman’s right to choose or even to information about her fetus.

    “I wrestle with gender-based abortion more than any other reason [a person might give for choosing to abort] … Gender? Geez,” said Angie Murie, executive director of Planned Parenthood Waterloo Region, which is a member of the Canadian Federation for Sexual Health. “From a macro perspective, I don’t think it’s a very good idea for us to be eliminating women. But if you look at it at the individual level, which is what we do, I don’t have any right to say that one person’s reason is better or worse than another’s.”

    Finally,

    “Any type of malicious behaviour or moral indiscretion in medicine starts with the assumption that somebody is not a person. That’s the beginning of the slippery slope.” said head of pediatrics Montreal Children’s Hospital (a man I believe).

  37. Margaret Barr March 15, 2012 at 10:02 am

    Hint to Newsfan; anyone can sit at a computer all day and search the www for info to support their views. I could find just as many experts to support mine. However, I think this about what we (the poster) thinks……not what we can find on the internet…

    Hags, I think your ‘guess’ is a good one….

  38. newsfan March 15, 2012 at 10:23 am

    Sit on the computer all day? Support my views? What a chidish response.

    Here is what I think Maggie B. The information clearly stated significant pro-choice views by women and many of the leading agencies supporting your point of view, in respect to abortion by gender. The topic.

    Clearly such a response like yours reflects the grumpy morning disposition of someone with a personality that parallels that of a can of mashed assholes. Good day Maggie B.

  39. JAN Liggett March 15, 2012 at 11:16 am

    “Last, I think girls have a problem responding to this one because the heart of the matter implies the erosion of your right to choose.”
    I don’t think that is the reason we don’t respond immediately. I have learned that sometimes when men speak about abortion the conversation threads become more about controlling women’s bodies and actions than about the philosophical debate itself. I am glad Hags that you are asking the question with a seemingly true desire to know what we think rather than telling us what we “should” be thinking. I am definitely pro-choice. While I can no longer choose for myself I respect the right of others to make that choice. I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes, but I would be right there beside them in their anguish (and for most it is anguish).
    “In my way of thinking there are two positions for a pro-choicer to take in this matter…1) ending a pregnancy because the fetus is a girl is simply a matter of choice and therefore allowable or 2)ending a female pregnancy should not be permitted…thereby limiting woman’s right to choose….BTW, #2 I would guess, is most women’s choice…but it’s just a guess.” Funny, I reread this post you wrote after I had started to write this one. Please note that you have affirmed what I say, by your use of the words “In my way of thinking” and that there are only 2 positions a pro-choice person.
    The culture of aborting female babies is not necessarily a choice these women make, but what they may be forced into, by male dominated societies. The erosion of their right to choose is the real problem. We also have men here who force their wives to have abortions because they (the men) simply don’t want anymore children (women have to choose their marriage over a fetus; some choice!) That perhaps is why we women here in Canada value what we have fought hard for in spite of the derision we encounter. China has long been noted to force abortions, and India as well. China now has the opposite problem of no women for the millions of men to marry, therefore no children to look after them in old age.
    As for the answer to the question, aborting the fetus because it is a girl is not the same as aborting a fetus because of medical concerns, mother’s life or rape. For me the answer is simple, we are still struggling to maintain the rights we do have and no male dominated society coming into Canada should be allowed the foothold of forcing us to have abortions because girls are not recognized as valuable to them. I see this as no different then the underground circumcisions of females in Canada. Laws to prevent both are what is required, but what a Gordian knot that would be. A knot that mustn’t be sliced, but undone with care.

  40. newsfan March 15, 2012 at 12:10 pm

    I disagree with you Jan. When you speak of women in respect to abortion, you imply that all women are of the same opinion as you. All women do not agree with your position as per the following statement by REAL Women of Canada:

    Statement on Abortion
    REAL WOMEN OF CANADA reaffirms that the family is society’s most important unit: we value equally every family member, born or unborn. Reproductive choice is exercised prior to conception, because conception and birth are consequences of choice; not choices in themselves. Anyone who is not certain that there is a second human being growing within the pregnant woman should clearly give that human life the benefit of the doubt.

    It is said repeatedly by feminists that society over the years has oppressed women and that feminism is the answer to overturning this oppression. How, then, can the genuine feminist justify, in turn, aborting her unborn son or daughter, the most deadly kind of oppression?

    In a democracy, there is the acceptance and practice of the principle of equality of rights, opportunity and treatment for all. The unborn child must be included because we cannot arbitrarily take away the rights of one group of human beings without giving assent to the withdrawal of rights from other categories of human beings. Since we are pro-family, we cannot discriminate by allowing an attack on one member of the human family such as the unborn child. Doing so has opened the door to attacks on other vulnerable members of the family, such as the aged, and the mentally and physically disabled.

  41. Hags March 15, 2012 at 12:37 pm

    Jan, you are right about man’s role in either forcing or recommending abortions to suit ‘their own convenience’. I wish that if there was ever a vote in the matter that men would be excluded from the exercise.
    Anyway, I’m glad to hear from (you) women and am also glad that the tone of the thread had been relatively respectful.

  42. JAN Liggett March 15, 2012 at 12:43 pm

    Newsfan,

    I thought I was clear when I said “for me the answer is simple”. I also realize that Real Women as an organization have their voice and a message to relay. I have also found the name of the organization interesting.

    Feminism comes at many different levels. “Feminism is the answer to overturning this oppression”, no, feminism turns the light on oppression. It is the understanding of oppression and a desire to do away with oppression that will overturn it (if that will ever be possible). You can be for a family oriented society and still be pro-choice.

  43. newsfan March 15, 2012 at 1:12 pm

    Jan, I just posted to you but it was bounced.

  44. joe lethbridge March 15, 2012 at 2:09 pm

    somehow my posts are not showing

  45. joe lethbridge March 15, 2012 at 2:10 pm

    Sheesh- that one did and my response was far less intense than some

  46. Hags March 15, 2012 at 2:35 pm

    I’m in favour of a raucous debate; it’s the Irish in me…let everyone be heard. Scot?

  47. JAN Liggett March 15, 2012 at 3:10 pm

    So we have something in common Hags!

  48. Hags March 15, 2012 at 3:35 pm

    Jan, now it’s you who’ slacking off and Les who’s working his pristeen little butt off.
    BTW, you should have known I had the Irish in me…it explains the excess of eloquence and dirth(for me anyway) of brain-power.
    Oh, that ‘something in common’ line…you mean you’re a heartless right-wing lunatic too?

  49. Tammy Burden March 15, 2012 at 4:46 pm

    Without reading ALL of the comments, I would like to jump in with my opinions. The right to choose which gender child we are to have is rarely dependent on the woman. In cultures where women are nothing more than a womb and a cleaning lady, do you think it is her choice to sit by while her child is ripped from her womb because it is not of the superior sex? I think not.

    I don’t care what race you are, no woman wants to give up the life growing inside her. These rules are in place because of men. China has too large of a population, yes. They slow this calamity down by sanctioning only one baby per family. Why, I ask, is that child better off being a boy than a girl? What will happen in China’s future when they have more men than women? Who gave them the right to choose which sex is better?

    You are all arguing a woman’s right to choose to have a child dependent on sex. Is it right to abort a half grown fetus because it’s chromosomes aren’t desirable? What woman out there cares what sex their child is? I know I wanted a girl, but when I had my boys it didn’t matter to me what he/they were.

    Women all over the world are forced to face atrocities like this on a daily basis because some man decided a long time ago that woman is the weaker of the two sexes. I see forced abortion to be no different than stoning in the middle east or genital mutilation in Africa. Woman are treated as inferior beings and forcing them to abort a child no different.

    Yes, there are many instances where abortion is required, possibly where a rape has occurred or there is some developmental problem with the fetus, but aborting because you wanted a boy is sickening.
    Those are my two cents.

  50. Hags March 15, 2012 at 6:37 pm

    Thanks for your passionate input Tammy Fay. Hope you are liking the change of scenery.
    Don’t be a stranger, jump in on this site any time you want; you are missed.

  51. Allan Dettweiler March 15, 2012 at 7:35 pm

    This whole discussion is pretty much a waste of time. There are way too many who just don’t believe an unborn child should have rights.
    Oh yes, everyone wants all the rights and choices for themselves. But too many can’t grasp the simple idea that not everything in this world is about themselves.
    We have only one problem in this world. It’s called GREED.
    As far as I’m concerned, there’s no difference between taking a claw hammer to Tori Stafford or cutting a poor defenseless child out of the womb.
    There is a day of judgement coming!

  52. Allan Dettweiler March 15, 2012 at 7:41 pm

    And yes, it is that simple!!!
    The defenceless unborn child didn’t have choices. The choice to be conceive was made for them. And no, I’m not referring to rape. That’s a different issue.
    Some of you who are condemning McClintick/Rafferty better have a good hard look at yourselves.
    Plain and simple!!

  53. Allan Dettweiler March 15, 2012 at 7:44 pm

    Furthermore, no one is being forced to keep an unwanted child. There are families on the waiting list for adoption.
    There is no need to be a party to murder!!!!

  54. Allan Dettweiler March 15, 2012 at 7:55 pm

    “The people, who protest abortion…. are among the same ones who rail against the government getting into their private lives”.

    True, I’m one of them. And I think the writer of the above statement wishes to control her own destiny as well. I think she doesn’t like government telling her what to do.
    And I’m against those who come up with a sanitized term such as “pro-choice” to interfere and snuff out the life of the innocent unborn child.

  55. Hags March 15, 2012 at 9:10 pm

    Allan, I’m not sure where you stand on this issue; don’t sugar coat it and try again! xoxo Hags

  56. Allan Dettweiler March 15, 2012 at 9:22 pm

    And I love you too Hags!

    It has nothing to do with where I stand. There are “rules” that have been given
    mankind, and everytime we screw around with the commandments, things get messed up.
    Someday, there is going to be a perfect world – not in our life-time, I don’t think.
    But I can tell you with certainty, when we have that perfect world, there won’t be any abortions.
    I think any caring person should be working to get us moving closer to that perfect world. In the case of this absolutely messed up world, that means a heck of a lot more than filling up your Blue Box.

  57. Allan Dettweiler March 15, 2012 at 9:24 pm

    … just to be clear, I love Patty more than you, Hags.

  58. les March 15, 2012 at 10:17 pm

    Allan, Allan, Allan, you’re mixing religion with reality and you do know it doesn’t work.
    One if fiction the other is, well, reality.

  59. Allan Dettweiler March 15, 2012 at 10:40 pm

    Les, was a time when there was more religion.
    In those times, there were few abortions. And if it did happen,
    it was in back alleys and hidden away where this type of evil, repulsive
    behavior belongs.
    Not in places of healing where physicians are supposed to abide by
    something called a Hippocratic Oath.
    Tell me something Les, if there ever was such a thing as a perfect world,
    for whatever reason, would mothers be having their children killed?
    Yup, were living in a real world with lots of reality. And its a f*^*ed up world.

  60. Hags March 16, 2012 at 10:40 am

    Les, ‘One is fiction, the other is reality’ and they call me a provacateur!
    BTW…yup, I can see how it’s fiction…unless He reveals himself to you in a personal way…but if He does…then you got some thinking and self-examination to do my friend.
    I was just thinking, a union of Hungarian and Irish…unusual but not quite as weird as German/ Irish.

  61. newsfan March 16, 2012 at 10:51 am

    Jan you confirmed a couple of my earlier points in respect to abortion when you stated “China now has the opposite problem of no women for the millions of men to marry, therefore no children to look after them in old age.” and “no male dominated society coming into Canada should be allowed the foothold of forcing us to have abortions.”

    First, if selective abortion based on gender is turning the demographic balance of China upside down, what do you think is happening here. Well, you hint at it in your other point where you gallantly state that no “male dominated society coming to Canada should be allowed the foothold…”.

    Stop right there a moment. You just told us, or implied, that our demographics can be altered to the point that another culture could take it’s place. No kidding!! Statistics prove that to be the very case because our birth rate will be completely negated by that of other cultures moving into Canada in not too many more years!

    So you’re telling me that pro-choice feminists will get say, Islam, to modify it’s Quranic values and Sharia Law? Maybe you’ll get them to play hockey and ringette as well?? That is delusional Jan.

    Conclusion, those who agree to abortion are killing our future and our culture which will, and has begun to be replaced by other foreign cultures with significantly negative repercussions to our country and way of life.

  62. JAN Liggett March 16, 2012 at 12:28 pm

    That was an interesting take on what I wrote Newsfan.
    “Our” culture is never stagnant in this country. It through demographics has always changed based on what country’s immigrants came at any given time. Our laws have evolved, partially because of this.
    “So you’re telling me that pro-choice feminists will get say, Islam, to modify it’s Quranic values and Sharia Law? Maybe you’ll get them to play hockey and ringette as well?? That is delusional Jan.”
    How did you ever get that from “Laws to prevent both (gender abortion & female circumcision) are what is required, but what a Gordian knot that would be”

  63. Hags March 16, 2012 at 1:41 pm

    I was hoping that Scot would run a humour attempt of mine and possibly get us away from a thread that has hopefully run its course.
    I’m glad the girls jumped in and gave their point of view…now can we move on? Scot, where are you, o’ mullet headed sage of decadent and decaying downtown Galt?

  64. Joe lethbridge March 16, 2012 at 2:03 pm

    he seems to gone AWOL or perhaps his hat has swallowed him up.

  65. JAN Liggett March 16, 2012 at 2:36 pm

    Hungarian & Irish. Yes it does lead to passionate debates in our house sometimes, but respectful

  66. Joe Lethbridge March 16, 2012 at 4:36 pm

    Congratulations Jan for being a finalist in The Bernice Adams Memorial Awards !!

  67. les March 16, 2012 at 9:56 pm

    Hags, Hungarian and Irish? A bunch of drunks that love to fish @!
    Allan, religion is great if you need it.
    We all need to believe in something and that something is whatever you believe in.
    To push it on someone is simply unacceptable.
    There is no such thing and never will be as a perfect anything.
    Religion is what the Crusades were all about. Perfect?
    Religion is what tolerated the abuse of the children of “savages” here in good ole Canada to teach them to become good Christians. Too bad the good fathers couldn’t keep their willy in their pants, and still can’t even today.
    Religion has a place.
    People need it, when they need it and how they wish to use it.
    If one beleives that abortion is not acceptable regardless of the situation, so be it, then don’t preform it.
    Keep your opinions to yourself and amongst those that wish to hear it and stop telling others how to live. It cannot be a government policy issue as some would like it to be.

  68. Allan Dettweiler March 17, 2012 at 4:27 am

    Les, in all those situations you speak of where religion – and specifically Christianity gets a black eye, the “rules” were broken. Plain and simple.
    No matter what religion someone practices – or does not practice, the person is not perfect.
    So even those who could, generally, be considered as good – well, they have flaws.
    Sometimes those who associate themselves with a particular religion are down-right frauds. Just as there are sometimes fake doctors or plumbers or electricians: there are fake Christians.
    Pushing religion on someone is not right BUT a few (but not all) of the “rules”
    are generally accepted as necessary in a civilized society – thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, and THOU SHALT NOT MURDER.
    Many other “rules” have become overlooked – keeping the sabbath holy, coveting thy neighbours wife, six days shalt thou labour etc.
    So, the 10 commandments are slowly being eroded.
    Including THOU SHALT NOT MURDER – it’s OK if you can somehow get around the rule by making it a matter of “choice”.
    And that is unacceptable in any society which considers itself to be civilized – religious or not. Killing ones young does not make for a better society no matter how you spin things.

  69. Hags March 17, 2012 at 8:41 am

    To be acurate, the Crusades were about Muslim expansion as much as anything. People don’t realize this but the Mid East and North Africa were Christian for app 700 years, before being over-taken by Islam.
    Les, if I wanted to ‘push religion’, I could probably do so at the Citizen but choose not to. I have however mentioned that I am a follower of the ‘Way’…merely so people can get a better sense of who I am.
    Allan, when you did those ‘four in a row’ a while back on the thread…I could almost see and feel the steam erupting from your ears, eyes and arse.
    Sorry but I had to laugh…not at the topic but at an intelligent friend having what seemed to be a momentary meltdown. Sorry but derision of friends is part of my DNA…very un-Christian of me I’m sure.
    Les, funny but atheists are now securing advertising space encouraging people to reject their beliefs as mere myths…seems downright evangelical to me.

  70. Sandra Hill March 18, 2012 at 9:30 am

    My line of work is sometimes difficult when dealing with families that are in trouble financially and are at the point of breaking up. The challenge today is job security and what is a man to do when his wife tells him she will take the kids and leave. She also states that she will call the police and have him arrested for abusing her. Men general want to protect their children, and provide for their family. Police generally will not take the children away from their mothers.

    But sometimes I feel for the safety of the children it is necessary. I feel that in some cases the women are thinking of themselves and not the children.
    So Allan you have some good points in why does a women have the right to choose?
    What if the man wants the unborn child?
    Why is there not statics to show how many women killing there children in Canada
    Yes men can be controlling but so can women
    Are men painted with the same brush when it comes to women and children

    Yes I do agree with Tammy that many instances where abortion is required
    Hags I may be a bit off topic but it’s necessary to understand why in Canada when it comes to domestic disputes police will not get involved and the men general have no rights
    I think it is disgusting that a women or man should have the right to abortion if the fetus is a girl – This is immoral

    I do not believe that government should make this choice either but maybe there should be a law of process that women need to go through when making this choice.

    Once a child is born and the family is broken then who can say it was a good choice for the child.

  71. Allan Dettweiler March 18, 2012 at 12:49 pm

    OK everyone, I’m just wondering.
    Say for some reason a couple wants a girl. A boy won’t do.
    Is it OK to abort the child just because it’s a boy?

    A couple who don’t want a particular sex of child need not
    say so. If the sex is not right, they can just go get an abortion.
    They need not give their reasons.

  72. JAN Liggett March 20, 2012 at 1:54 pm

    Joe, congratulations to you as well. It seems I am in good company.
    This discussion has so gone off of the rails. I think that Jim was right about this thread ending.
    By the way Les, I am assuming you were talking only about the Hungarian part of this marriage & not the Irish.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Links