Fetus Freaks React to Sex-Selective Abortion Study

Fetus freaks reacted predictably to the news of a large study confirming that sex-selective abortion probably accounts for a significant male/female birth ratio imbalance in Ontario's Indo-Canadian community. (Note that freaks call it "gendercide.")

There are three categories of reactions.
1. Generalized hand-wringing, tut-tutting, and slamming of abortion.
2. "Where are the feminists?"
3. Calls to action.

1. Generalized hand-wringing. Two in this category: Focus on the Family's astroturf site and LieShite, which manages to pack in a bunch of buzzwords, including "cultural profiling" (whatever that is, but sounds bad, doesn't it?), "political incorrectness" (I think they mean "political correctness" but hey, they're just buzzwords, right?) and of course "gendercide." This one goes on for quite a bit but this is its only point:

Gendercide, or sex-selective abortion, shows everything that is wrong with abortion – all abortion.

2. Where are the feminists? The freaks clearly think they have a gotcha here that runs something like this: "If feminists really cared about women, they'd be up in arms about female fetuses being aborted."

Why they think this is a gotcha is a mystery to me. Duh, the reason we are feminists is because we are excruciatingly well aware of the bias against girls and women in society. And we're working to do something -- a bunch of things, actually, ranging from pay equity to universal day care to expanded reproductive care, etc etc etc -- about it. That's what makes us feminists.

Two in this category: Amateur Statistician and Robyn Urback in the NatPo, a truly loathsome, hypocritical piece (q.v.).

Aside: I left comments at both the Focus on the Family and Amateur Statistician blogs, asking politely what they would suggest be done about this. Focus on the Family declined to publish my question (though now there's an odd fragment of a tweet of mine in the comments) and AS said she wouldn't answer because I'm rude. OK then.

3. Calls to action. Here we have the Dominionist who is rather vague about what's to be done, because he doesn't actually have to say that his goal -- banning all abortion -- would fix the problem. But government should do something!!!!!!!

The other call to action is a media release from CampaignLie under the title "Campaign Life Coalition calls for legislation to ban sex-selective abortions."

The media release starts:

The barbaric practice of sex-selective abortions has resurfaced in Canada after further evidence has been published proving that gendercide does indeed occur in Canadian hospitals and abortion facilities.

("Barbaric," we all know, means "done by non-white people.")

But unlike the Dominionist, Campaign Lie has a plan. There's a quote from president Jim Hughes, referring to Ontario Health Minister Eric Hoskins' bone-headed knee-jerk, which I will address in another post.

“If he's truly disturbed by the killing of baby girls - just because they’re girls – then Hoskins shouldn’t hesitate to delist this type of abortion from provincial health insurance plans. Furthermore, every province’s Minister of Health should do the same.”

The title calls for a ban -- without of course getting into any of the messy details of how discriminatory, unethical, and futile such a ban would be, but the text calls for defunding the procedure.

Because that will help.

We know anecdotally that coercion -- general cultural pressure and/or specific pressure, threats, and worse -- is involved in at least some of these abortions. Here's an example from Jen Gunter, a practising OB/GYN (whose blogpost is essential reading on this topic).

"He beat me very badly after I had my last girl, I can’t go through that again,” a woman once told me. What exactly were this woman’s options who spoke limited English, had no job and depended on her husband for money. She took a bus to her abortion because she didn’t drive and would have to explain the money for a cab. Do I judge her? Do I with my upper middle class upbringing and the earning potential of a physician say, “Sorry honey, not tragic enough?” And what if she doesn’t get that abortion and is then beaten to death in her third trimester or after she delivers? I’ve seen that, but no one writing about the “evils” or “moral ambiguity” of sex selective abortion mentions maternal abuse or murder.

So, these kindly Christians ignore the circumstances of women in these situations and instead seek to punish them further and drive the practice underground.

Because, if they were "good" (even if non-white) women, they would instead undergo multiple pregnancies in the quest for a boy.

Jen Gunter again:

What about eight pregnancies in search of a boy, is that not harmful? Why does no one ever mention that when they discuss harm? I have delivered many women who sobbed and looked away in disgust when they saw they had delivered their fifth or sixth or eighth girl, because they knew they would be back year after year until they delivered that coveted boy or died trying. How is that not violence against women?

If women have to justify their abortion why shouldn’t they have to justify their eighth pregnancy? The latter is far more dangerous than the former.

And yes, six additional deliveries is a lot more harmful than six abortions.

How many pregnancies must a woman endure in search of a boy before the patriarchy decides she is allowed to have an abortion? Three? Five? Eight? Fifteen?

Whatever you call it, we need to look hard at this practice. To rewrite LieShite's line:

Gendercide, or sex-selective abortion, shows everything that is wrong with society in all its loathsome sexism, misogyny, classism, and racism.

All of which the fetus freaks are delighted to enable.

Any Fix for Sex-Selective Abortion Would Be Discriminatory, Unethical, and Futile

Well, now at least we seem to have some decent research on sex selective abortion in Canada.

Previous studies indicated that it might be happening in "some communities," but there were quibbles about methodology.

This seems solid.

It’s the clearest evidence yet that abortion is being used to help parents have a son. A study has found that some Indian-born immigrants to Canada are selectively aborting female fetuses if they have already had two daughters. The researchers say, however, that action may not be necessary as the incidence is low, and the practice is likely to go away on its own as immigrants become settled.

Link to full study.

Yes, it's happening in Canada, but as we've said many times before: So what?

There is still zero evidence that the practice is skewing the sex ratio in general.

And if it is skewing the ratio in "some communities," we say again: So what? Parents who prefer boys may get a comeuppance when their precious sons bring home girlfriends (or boyfriends [!]) from other ethnic backgrounds.

But look at the hand-wringing going on. The normally sane Toronto Star has an unusually sensational piece about it.

Even my fave Matt Galloway of CBC's MetroMorning got into the "abortion is terrible" meme, trying really hard to get one of the study's authors to call the results "troubling."

@metromorning Well, that was disappointing. Matt tried twice to get author of #SexSelection study to say he was "troubled" by findings.

— Fern Hill (@fernhilldammit) April 12, 2016

@metromorning Why "troubled"? Why not "what are implications?" Guy is a researcher. You want community reaction, ask them.

— Fern Hill (@fernhilldammit) April 12, 2016

@metromorning Good. It's a complicated issue and I find it "troubling" you fall so easily into stereotypical tropes.

— Fern Hill (@fernhilldammit) April 12, 2016

And while We Need a Law Like a Hole in the Head was ready with his SHRIEK!!!! (Title: Government needs to end pre-natal discrimination against women) and because somebody had to do it, Amateur Statistician asks WHERE ARE THE FEMINISTS????, it is very disappointing that mainstream media would prefer to point fingers and tsk-tsk.

(Other fetus freak sites are no doubt still working up their dudgeon.)

Also, this issue conjures up a disgusting stew of misogyny and racism. DO NOT read comments.

As an antidote, read this piece from the eminently sensible André Picard (from 2012) about the complexities of the issue.

Here's the thing: any attempted "fix" will be discriminatory, unethical, and futile.

Refuse to reveal sex of fetus until it's too late to abort? How exactly? Refuse to disclose all pregnant patients' own information? Or just "some" patients?

What about sex-related genetic disorders? Will we force people to carry blighted pregnancies to term because we're up in arms over possible sex-selection?

And it will all be futile because there are home sex-test kits, highways and airplanes, and unethical ultrasound technicians.

The only way to "fix" this is to value girls and women as we do boys and men.

That's a helluva long-term project, but it's the only way.

From New Scientist again:

In India, male preference has led to a shortfall of millions of female children, so strict legislation was necessary. But in North America, the problem is small and likely to resolve itself as immigrant communities become more integrated. “My suspicion is that in the second generation you would not notice this phenomenon at all,” [Anil Deolalikar, economist at the University of California] says.

Past DJ! posts on sex selection.


ADDED: Dr Brian Goldman weighs in and comes to the attention of Dr Jen Gunter, newly dubbed "Twitter's OB/GYN."

Get ready for a response big time https://t.co/ts1TyM6qie

— Jennifer Gunter (@DrJenGunter) April 12, 2016

This won't be pretty. :)


UPDATE April 13/16: Here is Dr Jen Gunter's response to Dr Goldman. Ouch!

Something Dr Gunter mentions that I -- and most other commenters on this subject -- have not is: multiple pregnancies in the quest for a male child. Since we know that pregnancy is 14 times more dangerous than abortion, why does no one consider the risk of multiple pregnancies for the "good" women who do not seek abortion?


UPDATE April 14/16: Yesterday, CBC's The Current ran an informative and hopeful segment on this issue, demonstrating how complex it is.

Sex Selective Abortion: Latest SHRIEEEEK!

People are all up in arms because Rona Ambrose, Cabinet Moron Responsible for the Status of Women, voted in favour of Woodworth's Wank, aka The Motion to Determine When the State Gets Up Into Our Hoo-haws.

This should be no surprise. She has voted for fetal rights before.

But here her 'worry' is simply ridiculous.

The federal cabinet minister responsible for the status of women has offered at least a partial explanation for why she voted in support of a pro-life motion in the House of Commons.

Rona Ambrose says on Twitter that she's long been worried about discrimination against girls through "sex selection abortion."

One would need way more than 140 characters to get from Woodworth's Wank to sex selection abortion as it requires some spectacularly twisty gymnastics.

Then, right on cue, today CON MP Mark Warawa tabled a motion to condemn sex selection abortion.

We've been down this path at DJ! several times.

Is gender selection happening in Canada? Seems so, but the numbers are dodgy and the methodology controversial. (See above link for specific studies and reports.)

There is NO evidence that the at-birth gender ratio is skewed in Canada generally as a result, unlike in India and China where it is widely practiced.

There is some (questioned) evidence that there may be a slight gender ratio difference in 'some communities'.

But, as we've argued here before, so what? We've got lots of people in Canada. The few 'extra' boys in 'some communities' may be forced to look outside those communities for partners.

And that's a good thing. *evilsmiley*

Running with the sensational story though, back in June, CBC did an undercover gotcha on private ultrasound clinics to see whether any were willing to test for gender before the usual 20 weeks' gestation mark.

The notion is that if information is withheld until after 20 weeks, women and families inclined to select for males will not be able to. Abortion after 20 weeks is not done in Canada unless for pressing reasons.

The CBC did find clinics willing to perform ultrasounds earlier. Most of the cases seemed to me a result of sloppy training or an over-eagerness to please. One of the cases is indeed disgustingly venal and exploitive.

So, is that the whole story?

Seems not. In the US, where the same 'communities' are under scrutiny, the practice is getting coverage too. Like this recent story in Slate: How to Buy a Daughter.

Much of the evidence that Americans preferentially choose girls is anecdotal, as no larger body tracks gender selection procedures. But data from Google show that “how to have a girl” is searched three times as often in the United States as “how to have a boy.” Many fertility doctors say that girls are the goal for 80 percent of gender selection patients. A study published in 2009 by the online journal Reproductive Biomedicine Online found Caucasian-Americans preferentially select females through PGD [preimplantation genetic diagnosis] 70 percent of the time. Those of Indian or Chinese descent largely chose boys.

Some want boys, some want girls. Things even out.

But, of course there's more.

In this article, the author argues that sex selection is a parental right.

And why not? If we stand for reproduction by choice, why would we eliminate one category of choice? Me, I don't see a problem.

But there is.

Perhaps ironically, sex selection has caused some consternation among some feminists, a group usually known for their vocal support of reproductive freedom. Their objections to gender selection center around the possibility that the practice will encourage gender stereotypes. Girls made to be girls, they say, will face an undue burden to behave a certain way, to take up an interest in fashion instead of basketball, for example. That's certainly a possibility, but the complaint overlooks the fact that males and females are actually different in some important ways, as a lot of research has shown. Given those differences between the sexes, is it really such a bad thing that parents may prefer to raise a girl instead of a boy? 

Back in the Slate article, there is indeed some glurgey anecdotal crap about women wanting girls to shop, dress, and cook with.

Yuck.

But choice is choice.

You're for it or against it.

This issue is obviously the focus of the fetus fetishists' next gambit. It polls well for them.

From a January Angus-Reid poll:

Three-in-five respondents—including two thirds of women—believe there should be laws to outline whether a woman can have an abortion based solely on the gender of the fetus.

There oughta be a law!

I think Ambrose's idiotic justification and Warawa's Wank are just ploys to keep the fetus fetishists revved up and going for their chequebooks.

It may develop into something more serious and I'll woman the barricades again.

But I need a rest first.