Who is doing the abortions?

Isn't this where checks and balances should be?

I have sat in medical rounds at a hospital where the questionof abortion has come up and been decided.

Will clinics perform an abortion just because you ask them too?

Of course you will not get many takers on this one – because it exposes how lame their arguments really are.

But it really is simple!

A fetus is not a human being.

It is the woman’s body – and she has the right to choose.

It should be no different than her right to choose her hair color.

No one should have the right to butt in to her business on whether she wants to keep or destroy some foreign thing (not human) growing in her body.

In her family planning – what right does anyone have to tell her what sex she can choose, any different than telling an adult which sex of spouse they have to have?

Don’t people who adopt get to choose the sex of the child they adopt? Why should it be any different for natural parents?

And don’t get me started on the racial card.

The bottom line is mind your own business – there are no moral absolutes.

huh??

you don't think that people are going to respond to this thread??

you just did.  i think thats a good start.

not really.

if you are a black and white thinker, perhaps... but i am seeing a huge grey area here... which is why i'm asking.

i suppose if you think that a fetus isn't a human being, then its a pretty cut and dry decision.

must by why you think this is so 'easy'...

yes, i'd agree there...

these two don't seem to line up for me...

are you suggesting that having an abortion is the same as same sex marriage??  why??

people who adopt get to choose the child they want to adopt.   to an extent, this is also true of natural parents... if a fetus is revealed to have anomalies that make it incompatible with life, the parents have the option of an abortion.

what racial card??

again, this seems pretty black and white to you, apparently...  for me, it isn't.

i'm interested in discussing the grey here... i'm guessing that isn't something you are going to be able to do, saul.

i see that you went and opened another thread on this topic in politics...

shall we adjourn to your thread then??

No,

You were first, I just missed it.

no problem...

mist made  post on yours that i thought was quite good, though...

I found this site first, so I'll respond here.

I am pro-choice.  That doesn't mean I am pro-abortion.  It means that I think every woman has the right to make an Informed choice about what is happening to her body, and an informed choice as to whether she thinks it is right to bring a baby into her world at this time.   

I believe that there needs to be education to understand the process of conception and the growth and development through the different stages from egg and sperm to baby.    I believe that there needs to be support for the potential mother and child - physical, financial, social and emotional support.   I also believe that there has to be alternatives.  

I believe that hospitals have committees - and they may consider the ethics involved in each case, as well as things like the physical and emotional condition of the potential mother and child.  It takes time and money, and it takes the choice away from the woman.   I believe too that clinics offer abortion on demand - with little waiting time and little information or education offered.  Surely there is a better way so that the woman can truly make an informed choice.

So for the question being considered.   I really can't say what is right for another person of another culture and background and in circumstances so very different from any I have experienced.   My gut reaction is that there shouldn't be any need for abortion on the basis of gender.   But then my gut reaction is that with good information about birth control and better support and alternatives offered to those women who's birth control fails (or in cases of rape, incest, etc), that there shouldn't be many cases where a woman feels it necessary to abort a healthy fetus.  

So what about looking into the reasons why a person or a couple or family would consider aborting on the basis of gender.  Most likely it is because girls are not valued as much as boys.   Then we need to work on promoting the equality of the sexes.  We need to value girls as much as boys.  

We need to educate both women and men as to the fact that girl babies, and girls in general are just as valued in our society as males are.  In Canada a family does not lose status by having a girl child first, or in having all girl children. 

A friend who had three little boys was advised to have her tubes tied for medical reasons.  "But I don't have my girl yet."  She protested.   "With these three healthy, good-looking boys you will get your girls - you just have to wait awhile."  She told this story 25 years later with two daughter-in-laws and three granddaughters in the family.    She wanted girls.  

We need a society where both genders are welcomed equally, and valued equally.  

And perhaps in the meantime we need to education and support families, and offer alternatives.  

lol!!!  great post... thanks for that!!

Sighs - just meant to show that both genders can be equally valued and equally important within the family and in society.  

It is a great story to line up on the abortion debate.

The problem, for me, is data.

Does asking 65 women from India in the US (one Canadian) mean "thousands" in Canada? Does the practice "not being completely abandoned" mean it is rampant?

Not to me.

Scientists and researchers are people too. They have their own prejudices.

So, too does the press. I have yet to see much that states Dr. Kale wrote an EDITORIAL. I have yet to hear it presented that he THINKS immigrants have imported the practice to Canada. I have not heard much about Dr. Kale's experiences in Mumbai causing him concern in Canada, whether it is that he sees through the past or has valid concerns others may not have on their radar.... I do not see the quote "if this is the case" (the exact words used by Kale) getting many headlines. I do not even see people reading his headline as written,  "It's a girl - COULD be a death sentence" (emphasis mine).

Using the data of the "missing girls" of India, Dr. Jha's research, is not even scientific. India is not Canada. You cannot say if it happens in A, it happens in B.

Sensationalism, political propaganda... call it what you want. I do not call it research or science or even journalism

There is a good column in Thursdays Globe and Mail.

the author wirtes that why do we get upset about discrimination against women through sex selection abortions but that we don't object to discrimination against those with genetic defects.  ie we have no issue with someone having an abortion because of fetal down syndrome.

I don't think it's simple but I do think it does ultimately rest on whether we think a woman can do what she chooses with her own body.  i think putting restrictions on that starts us down the slippery slope towards regulations that we may not want.

I once met a woman who had her beautiful child with her - the child had Down syndrome (and a wondrous big grin).  In conversation she openly shared that following her ultrasound she was given an appointment with a specialist, and told her husband should also attend.  The ultrasound had indicated that there child was affected by Down syndrome.  The 'specialist' immediately started talking about access to abortion.  This woman and her husband weren't interested and abortion - they knew they wanted there child and would love him/her.

I found this interesting because I hadn't heard anyone talking about this type of pressure to have an abortion before.  I wasn't surprised though.  There seem to be all sorts of medical procedures that change from being 'an option under extreme circumstances' to become 'the normal fix for perceived difficulties'.  Apparently some doctors recommend surgery on the ears of babies whose ears  are judged to stick out too far - saying the child will be teased at school! 

Pretty soon they will figure out a way to detect big ears in the womb and just put that poor little gaffer out of his misery before even his mother can tease him.

Can't we just cut his ears off Saul?

I guess.

Surely, everyone should be able to see the hypocracy of someone being pro-choice (pro abortion) and not pro-choice (choose the sex) at the same time.

Society has no care for God's law - do not commit adultery. Even people who claim to be of the church - saying what goes on between consenting adults is nobody else's business.

And then when consequences arise - the go to solution is to break the "do not kill" law. And you are not even killing an offender, but an innocent bystander.  And again, you can even find a church to stand by you in that descision.

First, just to get it out of the way, pro-choice is not equal to pro-abortion.  I'm not going to get in to all the arguments of why here, though, because it takes a long time and it's not really relevant to the discussion, imo.

Within pro-choice there is a wide grey area of opinions about when abortions should be allowed and when they shouldn't.  It's usually a continuum from absolutely no abortions, through to allowing them when the mother's life is at risk, the fetus has severe health issues or abnormalities and/or in the instance of rape.  The next line seems to be drawn at teenaged parents, people whose birth control failed, people who for whatever reason are in a really bad position to be able to take care of a child at the moment, etc.  The next line, farther down the continuum, is people who were just careless and/or irresponsible or people who want to abort a fetus that is the "wrong" gender, and finally at the farthest point are people who advocate the right to choose on any grounds whatsoever.  (There is a second line of reasoning about how far along in the pregnancy an abortion should be allowed, too, often based on fetal viability.)

Is it hypocritical?  I'm not sure if that's the correct word or not.  It's certainly a judgement on whether something is right or wrong, though.  I would compare it to the justifiable force argument when it comes to protecting yourself or others...at what point can you defend yourself physically?  Some would say that the second someone enters their property, they should have the right to attack them.  Others would say that it's the moment that there is a perceived threat, then others would say it's the moment that there is an actual threat, and still others would say that it's never justifiable to use force against another, not even if your own life is threatened.  Is it hypocritical for me to say that it's ok to use force against someone who attacks you but not against someone who verbally threatens you?  I'd say it's simply a matter of opinion.

In the case of abortion, I think that I'm not so different from others in that I have different answers for what I personally would do, what I would support others doing, what I would judge harshly and what I think should be legal.  I can't personally imagine having an abortion unless my life were in danger if the pregnancy continued, and I might consider it in the case of rape or if the fetus had huge abnormalities that would severely limit his/her life.  For me, it has to be more than just inconvenience to warrant an abortion.  If I had been pregnant as a teen, I'd have become a teen mom.  Right now I don't want to have any more kids, but if I got pregnant I'd be a mom to another child.  That's just me, though.

I stood by a friend who got pregnant at 19 who did not want to have a child yet.  Her birthcontrol failed and she very responsibly went to the ER to get "the morning after pill" which also failed.  She was single, she and her boyfriend had broken up, she had just started university and she had very little family support.  A child would have totally derailed her life.  That said, she made a decision that I would not have made.  I told her I'd support her and continue to be her friend no matter what, but that I thought she should have the baby, even knowing how much it would affect her life.  I thought the baby deserved a chance to live, and I pointed out that while people can come to regret their abortions, they seldom regret having their children.  Then I told her that I would stand by her no matter what, but I just wanted to make sure that she heard the other side since so many people were just assuming that she'd abort, and that I wouldn't say anything else about it.

I have known others to abort for reasons that I find even less acceptable to me: a couple in their mid twenties in a committed relationship and with stable employment who just didn't want to start a family yet...maybe in a couple of years.  That story, to be honest, made my blood boil.  They were in a place in their lives when they could handle it and they even wanted kids in the near future; abortion seems like a really huge response to having a child 2 years earlier than you had planned.  I feel the same way about abortion on the grounds of gender, but I have to admit that I really, really wanted my girl.  I would never have aborted a male fetus, but I think I would have been heartbroken to not have a daughter.  I don't know why I feel that way, and I feel awful for the son that could have been, but it's true.  Fortunately I got my girl and I don't have to worry about how I might have felt if I hadn't. 

Legally, I don't feel comfortable limiting people in their choices, not even if I disagree vehemently with their reasons.  I'm horrified that people would abort for certain reasons, but I know that others would draw lines in different places and I can't in good conscience claim the right to tell other people what to do with their bodies.  I want to see abortions become more and more rare and I want to see the reasons for the ones that do occur be more and more "valid", at least to my way of thinking, but I don't believe the answer is to ban them or set restrictions on them.  Like I said in the other thread, I think the answer lies in education and changing values.  Abortion in general will be less common if people know about and practice safer sex, if they have the strength inside themselves to choose when and with whom to be sexually active, and if the supports exist for those with unplanned pregnancies to either raise their children or give them up for adoption.  In this gender based abortion situation, the value of girls needs to rise.  This is something that will take time.  I wish the answer were more quick and simple, but it isn't. 

Saul now Paul,

I get that is how you feel.

Yet, others can see hypocrisy in being pro-life (anti-abortion) and not pro-life for criminals (death penalty).

Whether we are pro-life or pro-choice on the abortion issue, it does not make a clear statement across the board on euthanasia, capital punishment, war... even a clear stance on ALL abortion. UNLESS, the person chooses that it does.

Some who are pro-life support abortion in certain medical instances.

Some who are pro-choice do not support another being able to make that choice (no matter what the choice is) for the one pregnant, no matter their age. Some who are pro-choice support parental rights over those of the pregnant person.

Some who are pro-life support more parental rights and some more the mother's rights.

Some, on either side's, opinion may be shaped by WHAT the parent's or pregnant peron want to do.

Some who are pro-life support abortion in the instance of rape or incest.

Some who are pro-choice do not support late stage abortion.

If someone has a one-size-fits-all answer, it is for them. It is because they believe it will fit them.  Sometimes it does fit. Sometimes they buy it and find out later it does not fit.  Some folks know they wear different sizes depending on the design, the material... and many other things.

You can talk about it like it's a bunch of notes along the slide of a trombone - but it isn't.

Legally - any fetus is fair game.

We have already established that they are of no more value and have no more rights than little scraps of pink and blue paper.  If there was no paper - there would be no pink or blue. The value is in the paper, not the color.

out of curiosity, are you pro death penalty?

how do you feel about murdering doctors who perform abortions?

or when canadian soldiers kill others in war??

cause it would seem to me that if you are all about the 'do not kill' commandment when it comes to abortion, you would also have to be against the death penalty, against murdering doctors who perform abortions, and against our government deploying troops to fight in wars in the middle east.

Send up the smoke screens.

I am not pro death penalty.

SG - I don't get the connection. You are saying on end of life decisions, you want to be your own advocate, if you cannot, you have appointed an advocate.

The fetus has no advocate. aborted babies cannot make their wishes known. But from my understanding of life, the fetus is already struggling to survive, and not thinking, come on somebody please abort me now.

I am not pro death penalty.

**

I am. But only in certain situations.  (Russell Williams? Robert Pickton? That Norwgian fella?) They will NEVER be safe in society. And yet they will take up space in our overly crowded prisons getting fed and housed on our dime for who knows how many collective decades.

I started watching this once but got interrupted. I really need to finish watching when 'all is quiet on the Western Front'.  IE at home.

watch it with somebody else because you are going to want to talk about it after, and you won't want to wait another 30 for them to watch it after you did.

SaulNowPaul,

I did not say I want an advocate. I understand that works for your agenda, though. What I said is it is my body. As such, I have also written my beliefs, wants, desires and objectons down and I want that followed and since I may not be able to express things, yes I have chosen an advocate.

When I entered training to be an advocate it was to advocate for a person, respecting their autonomy...not bringing myself, my political or religious beliefs of ANY cause into it. It meant I knew a woman may chose abortion or adoption or to raise the child.

I have held a hand when an abortion was done. I have held a hand as a woman gave birth to never be handed that child but to willingly turn it over for adoption. I have held a hand when an incarcerated woman gave birth and handed that child over not of her own will.  

I have been there in pallative care. Again, it was my obligation to keep my religion, my politics... out of it. I have been there when peopleare denied nutrition or hydration or antibiotics to hurry death. I have been there when someone wants to be allowed to go. I have been there when the plug is pulled.

That kind of advocacy means I have opinions that I know are for me and my body. It also means I know my views are not written in stone and they are not along a party line.

I have also been there when capital punishment is carried out, both those who confessed of being simply evil and those who were mentally disabled. I know that I felt one way and others felt very differently.

I am pro-choice. I can also say I do not agreee with each choice that is made. I could say I personally would not have an abortion, but yet when I was raped I know the first thing I wanted was medication that would make pregnancy less likely.

I know that I can say I do not support parents pressuring or forcing abortion. Yet, what would I do if my 12 year old was raped? I can say I support a person choosing for themselves, but what if they are 12? What if they are not competent to understand? (I say this with a cousin who is not competent and who has been abused in institutional care)

I am anti-death penalty. That one has been tested  more than once.... and I am still opposed even when I love the victim. I understand it is my personal and political  and religious OPINION.

I am pro-euthanasia. Yet, if my wife wanted to end her life and I still had hope or wanted time... ?

So, I do not feel I can profess to know how I feel about every abortion.

There are a lot of questions with grey areas of opinion for answers between yes and no depending upon circumstances:

Is it ever ok to kill another person?  Grey areas include war, self-defence and the death penalty.

Is it ever ok to have sex outside of marriage?  Grey areas include consenting adults, being in love and pure recreational sex.

Is it ever ok to kill an animal?  Grey areas include pest extermination, hunting for food, hunting for warm clothing and self-defence.

Is it ever ok to steal?  Grey areas include stealing to survive, stealing non-tangible things such as cable or downloading movies and stealing back from someone who has already stolen from others (like Robin Hood).

For most people the answers to these questions are not clear cut.  Most people recognize the grey areas of circumstance in different situations.  Abortion is no different.  Yes, there are some who would say that abortion is no big deal and it's doesn't matter what the reasons are, and at the other end of the spectrum are people who say it's never acceptable, but in the middle you'll find people who DO think it's a big deal, but who see it as being acceptable under certain circumstances, just like all of the other big moral questions.  Even more importantly, most people don't draw the same lines in the sand to divide what's ok from what's not ok.

Here are my lines in the sand for the above issues: 

Killing:  In self-defence (or in defence of another), it's absolutely ok, but if possible you should try to use the minimal force necessary to defend yourself or others.  Death penalty is absolutely not ok, if only because of the slight chance that you might have the wrong person.  As for war, I think it should be avoided as much as possible, but I also know that sometimes it can become necessary to protect the lives of the oppressed.  I would want to exhaust all other possibilities first, but if it came down to war as the only viable option to stop a tyrant, I'd support that war.

Sex outside of marrige:  This is purely an issue of consenting adults for me.  I don't have any moral objections to people taking part in any consensual sexual activities, regardless of gender or number of people involved. 

Killing an animal:  I eat meat.  I think it's ok to kill animals for food.  I regularly kill insect pests and I thought nothing of setting mouse traps when we had a mouse in the house.  At the same time, I believe that the animals should be treated as humanely as possible in their lives and that their deaths should be quick.  I do think that their lives are worth more than fur coats or trophies on a wall, though, and I don't support animal testing for cosmetics.  That said, I'm fine with people in the Arctic living traditionally and wearing fur because it's the best option under those circumstances. 

Stealing:  If stealing is the only way to survive, do it.  Otherwise, I'm not in favour of it.  Then again, I'm pretty wishy washy on the stealing cable and downloading stuff thing.  I get the idea of how it leads to lost revenues for the creators and actors and singers and so on, but at the same time if I download a movie for free, the movie hasn't been removed from anyone...it's still there.  Also, I wonder how much lost revenue there really is.  I suspect that most of the stuff people download is stuff they wouldn't have bought anyway.  Music is probably hit harder than movies or tv series.  I don't know.  To be truly honest, this is probably an area where I am just justifying things for myself rather than 100% believing in what I'm saying. 

The point of this long winded post?  Grey areas exist.  Nuances exist.   Seeing them doesn't necessarily make someone a hypocrite; for some people these are essential distinctions that make something ok or not ok.

what about the question of the canadian military and abortion doctors, though?

Let's get back to the question.  Abortion is legal in Canada - and the pros and cons, moral, ethical and religious issues have been discussed over and over on the Cafe.

The questions raised here are:

(1)   Is it a fact and a concern that 'thousands' of abortions are being done in Canada on the basis of the gender of the fetus, with a bias against females?

(2)   Would doctors and hospitals refusing to disclose the sex of the fetus until the 30th week or later be a solution to this problem?    

(3)  What alternatives are, or should be, available?  

In my opinion:'

(1)   I really doubt if it is 'thousands', but even in small numbers it is a concern.

(2)  I don't think this would work.  If a couple is desperate enough they will find other ways of getting around the law.   Unscrupulour medical people might be paid for the information.  A quick trip across the border to the States, or back home to India, China, or wherever.   A back-alley quack.

(3)   I think that, as stated in my earlier post on this thread,  the best solution would be to show respect for females and to value them equally with males.   

EXCELLENT point. 

its not too hard to circumvent any law that is thrown up here, if a couple is just that desperate to have a boy.  and then we are back to the back alley hacks.

you can find a church that will stand by you on any decision, really... some evanglical christian churches stand by the american soldiers who were torturing and murdering prisoners at gitmo. 

suggesting that this is somehow unique is ridiculous.

Dont trust a "report" about abortion put out by the Harper "government"

But he likes kitties.

no, he's had his picture taken with a kitten...

the rumour i heard was that immediately after the photo was taken, he threw it into a woodchipper.

Oh COME ON

Here he is at church

thats totally a photoshop...

he NEVER smiles.