|
|
|
|
"Putting Abortion Advocates in a
Box"
Part Two of Three By Dave Andrusko So read the headline in an op-ed that ran in Canada's "National Post" newspaper yesterday. Actually, to "abortion advocates," nothing really puts them in a box, not even the mind-numbing, logic-twisting, hair-scratching notion that a "feminist" would not do everything possible to prevent sex-selection abortions. They are zealots with a capital Z.
In a nutshell, they suggest that that health professionals hold off on telling parents the sex of their unborn child until after the gestational age at which "termination for non-medical reasons is no longer an option." They are not advocating withhold information but counseling that doctors not seek out the baby's sex. This sounds tricky but it can (and actually has been) done. For example, Leier told Patrick B. Craine of Lifesitenews.com that the "SOGC guidelines even say that extra time during the ultrasound should not be taken to ascertain the gender. "'We advocate a strict interpretation of [the SOGC ultrasound] policy so that the physician is not in a position to either disclose that information or not because it's not on the chart,' he said." Since an exceptional thoughtful look at the debate can be found at http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10041303.html, let me offer just a couple of comments. First, Leier and Thiele begin by arguing that sex-selection abortion has traditionally been associated with Asian populations with a strong preference for males. "However, recent evidence shows that a similar situation is emerging in North America, albeit on a smaller scale." They maintain there is a strong consensus against sex-selection abortion in Canada, citing opposition from the SOGC and a statistic from the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies that revealed opposition from 92% of Canadians, to name just two examples. Second, something akin to this is already taking place in British Columbia, according to a separate article in the National Post. For several years doctors there have "employed that approach, refusing to divulge sex information until 20 weeks into the pregnancy, said Dr. Alain Gagnon, an administrator at the B.C. Children and Women's Hospital. It seems to work, even if the policy strikes patients as strange, he said. "'Many of them find it a little silly that they have to wait to get the information,' Dr. Gagnon said. '[But] the vast majority of people seem to be happy with it.'" Third, the Abortion Establishment is having none of this. "To restrict people's freedoms, withholding information in that way, I think is unethical and unnecessary and is not going to prevent anything," said Joyce Arthur, co-ordinator of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada. "It's a little bit paternalistic and authoritarian." You can read Leier and Thiele powerful article at http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/custom?q=cache:cyhuH_XrykkJ: www.sogc.org/jogc/abstracts/full/201001_HealthPolicy_1.pdf+sex+selection&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=google-coop-np. Please send your thoughts and comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com. |
What
prompted Kelly McParland to
write was the recommendation
that appeared in the Journal of
Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Canada in January. Written by
bioethicist Dr. Brendan Leier
and Dr. Allison T. Thiele,
"'Towards an Ethical Policy for
the Prevention of Fetal Sex
Selection in Canada" offers
guidelines on how obstetricians
and gynecologists can walk the
fine line between official
opposition from the Society of
Obstetricians and Gynaecologists
of Canada (SOGC) to such
abortions and the simple truth
that women need offer no reason
for having an abortion,
including that the child is the
"wrong" sex.