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.
