If Kelly McParland wants to "put abortionists in a box" with his National Post article, he hardly achieves his aims. He surely raises an important issue in this thorny debate (gender-based abortion), but I for one agree with BC's doctors refusing to reveal the gender of the foetus before the 3-month indicative dealine.
The argument that one should either be 100% for or 100% against abortion is rubbish, and McParland insults the NP readers' intelligence by postulating as much.
In order to support "a woman's right to choose," you have to believe that a fetus is not human in the moral sense.
No, Kelly: just not sentient, viable or conscious. Take your pick and prove me wrong.
Gender-based pregnancy termination and seeking thereof is a cultural aberration confined, thankfully, to a restricted portion of Canada's population. This is no excuse to not address it as a potential calamity. Excessive gender imbalances bring about social unrest, a breakdown of families and the eventual need for government intervention. The Economist published recently an article about how incarcerating young black men in the US is ruining black women's family life and relationship prospects.
There's no need for an imbalance per se. In urban Russia one frequently meets young men decrying materialism and capitalism and young women whose self-esteem is rocketing downwards. The male gender has been relegated by two generations raised predominantly by single mothers (alcoholic husband) or widows (27 million dead in WW2 alone). As age progresses males are decimated by crime and health problems. Result: young (18-year-olds) rural women seek their fortune in Moscow or St Petersburg, leaving older 25-year-olds in the doldrums. Male relegation results in a car, a well-paying job and a nice flat being relationship sine qua non's.
Is this desirable? Do we want to even risk it?
I am an unashamed abortionist. I believe in elective abortion as long as, obviously, it does not harm the long-term prospects of society. A wilful creation of a gender imbalance is undesirable for the long-term health of the host society. Which is exactly why I favour not revealing a baby's gender until a legislative deadline is passed.
Electing for a termination due to a genetic condition or because the pregnancy is genuinely unwanted should not be tampered with. It's the abuse of a right we should tackle.
I don't get it why the most radical conservatives are against abortion. If it's just the liberals and feminists who abort their kids, surely in a few generations there wouldn't be any left. If the National Post can publish bullshit arguments, I am surely free to do the same.
7 comments:
Which is exactly why I favour not revealing a baby's gender until a legislative deadline is passed.
A legislative deadline?
And what, pray tell, is that?
Something of what common sense dictates the existence but politicians deny the reality.
The McParland article was awful. Sometimes it is better to not have laws. I agree with you that abortion is not so black and white, but the way it is practised in Canada works pretty well without clear rules about "it is too late". I am pretty sure that most women who are 2nd term are being referred to adoption counsellors. With no legislation, it is harder for couples to exert a "right to know" the sex or the child. Just because this can be tested, does not mean that we should foster sex-selection. Preference for males is more prevalent in certain cultures and this common sense rule doctors use sounds sensible to me.
Something of what common sense dictates the existence but politicians deny the reality.
So you're saying we should have a law stating the gestational age whereby abortion is prohibited?
I'm having trouble understanding your point. Thanks Luca.
Joanne, that is exactly my point.
Elective abortion (no questions asked) should be limited. After a set deadline (I guess the standard in the world is 3 months) abortion should be administered only on severe medical grounds such as, but not limited to: sepsis, life-threatening deformities, exposure to intense radiation or known deformity-causing chemicals, proven danger to the mother of continuing the pregnancy, et cetera.
I guess it isn't an intransigent position.
O.K. Now I see where you're going with this and I have to agree with you that this would certainly be better than what we've got now, which is no law or rules whatsoever.
"L" seems to think that the status quo is working but our tax dollars are paying for unfettered access and there is no way of knowing exactly how many women are opting for abortions past the stage of viability.
I have a big problem with that.
"If it's just the liberals and feminists who abort their kids, surely in a few generations there wouldn't be any left."
Surely even the children of liberals and feminists deserve to live!
Post a Comment