If you go to many parts of the world, girls are simply not valued as much as boys.
Having a son trumps all and especially in places in China, with its one child policy, being a girl in the womb can often be a death sentence.
In parts of India, there can be extreme pressure put on mothers to produce boys. Girls cost money, boys bring in money. Therefore parents want boys.
The advent of ultrasound technology has led to the practice of parents seeking, as early as possible, to determine the sex of their baby and then, if it is a girl, aborting it.
In China this has led to a gender imbalance that sees 119 boys born for every 100 girls, in some rural parts of China the ratio is 130 boys for every 100 girls, a huge imbalance that is found nowhere in nature.
In India, some experts say the situation is even worse and that India has the most distorted ratio of males to females there is.
This practice is now in Canada.
Parents, desperate for a boy are getting ultrasounds to determine the sex of their baby and then aborting the girls leading to some of the same problems of gender imbalance showing up in some areas of Canada among immigrant communities.
The Canadian Medical Association Journal has now come out with a lead editorial calling for new rules to stop this barbaric practice from happening.
Titled, “’It’s a girl’ – could be a death sentence” the editorial says there should be new rules to stop parents from finding out the sex of their baby until 30 weeks of pregnancy.
“Postponing the transmission of such information is a small price to pay to save thousands of girls in Canada,” said the editorial written by Dr. Rajendra Kale.
Dr. Kale says delaying the revelation of the sex of the child until 30 weeks would make obtaining an abortion more difficult.
I’m not sure that is true.
I understand the CMAJ position here.
It is truly barbaric that we would have girls aborted simply for the reason that they are girls, it flies in the face of what we hold dear in Canada.
Who would advocate killing off baby girls before they are born simply because they are girls?
However, fundamentally the CMAJ’s position is incoherent.
The journal supports abortion on demand, for other reasons. They support the status quo, which is a taxpayer funded abortion for any reason up until the ninth month.
We have no laws against abortion and there is no need to ever give a reason for having an abortion.
So if we believe that aborting baby girls just for being girls is wrong then why would it be okay to abort a child in the womb because it is an inconvenient time?
We allow that right now.
Why would be believe that it is wrong to abort girls because they are girls but believe that it is okay to abort because we fear the child, due to inconclusive and unreliable testing, may be less than perfect?
I’ve been crystal clear in my position and I will not shy away from this, I am against abortion – period. I am pro-life.
Anyone that thinks it is wrong that we abort girls for being girls but is generally okay with abortion for any other reason has to ask themselves why?
There is no logical reasoning to back up that position.
This is why we need to discuss these topics and think our positions through to their logical conclusion.
And that’s the Byline.