Essays

Why Sex-Selective Abortions Should be Banned

Terminating a pregnancy because the fetus is female devalues all women.

sex selective abortion 5

When someone is chicken-hearted, they are “timid, fearful and cowardly.”

Such is the case with the leaders of Canada’s three main political parties on the issue of female feticide: “the selective abortion of female fetuses.” Justin Trudeau, Andrew Scheer, and Jagmeet Singh don’t want any legal restrictions on abortion. However, without legislation, the practice of female feticide will continue.

A 2016 study found that sex-selective abortions are being performed in Canada. The study examined 177,990 births to women who immigrated from India. While there was no evidence of Canadian-born women having such abortions, there were “at least 4,472 missing girls” among Indian-born mothers.

The normal sex ratio at birth is 103 to 107 boys for every 100 girls. The study found that the sex ratio for Canadian-born mothers was within the normal range: 105 boys to every 100 girls.

However, for Indian immigrant mothers, the sex ratio increased with the number of births. By the third birth, the ratio was 138 boys for every 100 girls, and by the fourth birth, 166 boys for every 100 girls. This proves that thousands of Indian-born women in Canada have aborted a female fetus after giving birth to girls.

The disturbing practice of Indian women aborting female fetuses is rooted in traditional Indian culture where a higher value is placed on having a son over a daughter.

As a result, sex-selective abortions are common in India along with infanticide of baby girls. The country’s 2011 census found that there are 7.2 million more boys than girls under the age of 6. The normalization of female feticide has created a devastating social problem: a shortage of marriageable women.

In contrast to traditional Indian culture, it is rare for Canadian-born women to place greater value on a boy over a girl. To have an abortion simply because the fetus is female violates Canadian values of equality.

Nevertheless, the leaders of the Conservative Party, Liberal Party and NDP are unwilling to pass any legislation that would ban such abortions.

Andrew Scheer has decided to follow Stephen Harper’s policy position of not allowing any legislation on abortion. Although Sheer is pro-life, he doesn’t believe he can win an election by restricting abortion rights.

Justin Trudeau, who claims to be a Christian, is the most pro-abortion Prime Minister in Canadian history. Under the Canada Summer Jobs program, he denied funding to pro-life groups and churches that refused to sign his pro-choice values test. Trudeau celebrates abortion as an unlimited right.

Of the three party leaders, Jagmeet Singh, a member of the Indo-Canadian community and a practicing Sikh, should be the most vocal critic of female feticide. (Because Sheer and Trudeau are both white, it is more difficult for them to condemn the practice without being accused of racism.)

Unfortunately, Singh has the same policy position as Trudeau: that there should be no restrictions on abortion whatsoever.

Contrary to popular belief, limiting a woman’s right to an abortion does not violate the Charter of Rights. When the Supreme Court struck down Canada’s abortion law in 1988, it invited Parliament to draft a new law. (Brian Mulroney’s Conservative government passed abortion legislation in 1990, but it died in the Senate in a tie vote.)

Twenty-eight years later, Canadians are still waiting for legislation. While opinion polls consistently show majority support for a woman’s right to have an abortion, polls have also shown that a majority of Canadians are also opposed to sex-selective abortions.

Some people will argue that politicians should not impose their personal views on Canadians when it comes to abortion. This is nonsense. Any political party leader who wants to ban abortions on the basis of sex could campaign on it in a federal election. If their party wins, they would have the consent of the electorate to pass legislation.

It is time for Trudeau, Sheer and Singh to stop being chicken-hearted. In the next federal election, they should all promise to ban sex-selected abortions.

Female feticide should be illegal for a simple and obvious reason: Baby girls and baby boys both have equal worth. Terminating a pregnancy because the fetus is female devalues all women.

Anyone who believes in the equality of the sexes and supports female feticide is guilty of doublethink—believing two contradictory things and claiming that both are true.


This was originally published in The Post Millennial.

8 comments

  1. It seems so awful that such an issue exists. Abortion is a”freedom” for women. But there is no freedom for the females in the womb. How sad that people won’t admit that the preborn are human–just at an early level of development.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Thanks Christopher. Some people wonder why i’m a skeptic, why I generally have an evidence-based view of the world. You’ve shown a willingness to consider my lines of reasoning in the past which has led me to stay subscribed to your blog. I appreciate a thinker and even more, one who leads me to challenge my own beliefs. THAT is the beauty of skepticism, knowing that either more evidence or even just a different view can lead me to re-consider and maybe adjust my own perspectives. Skeptics don’t only like to analyse the views of others and to reach what they think are fairer, more likely conclusions, but also to, with equal vigour, re-analyse their own views. My mind may not so much be changed, but my angle on the subject certainly may be.
    BrianR’s comment did me that favour, prompted me to rationally re-evaluate my view on abortion and the factors involved.
    Now … I’ve had not much problem in general with legal abortion because of rape, incest, foolish mistakes where a woman knows perfectly well that she and the ‘Father’ of the child are in absolutely NO position to be good or even half-decent parents. If good reason is rationally believed that a child will not be well cared for, raised, prepared for adulthood and released upon the world with some expectation of a reasonable life, then it has seemed fair to me that they may terminate it. By the way, I have at times called myself pro-life, but not in the way that I condone the birth of a child in any or all situations. Any religious angle on this escapes me not just because I am an Atheist (and how many people even really know what that word means ?) but instead, because with life and death, allowed, given, forced, granted, taken in sooooo many ways, the specific interest of preserving the life of every zygote become child born of a woman, seems so very selective to me and no supernatural being who ‘adores every human soul’ on the planet story or theme can sway this view.
    I had thought that to allow abortion would solve the painful and disturbing episodes that rape and incest and such can create. But such allowance with allow not just these things I see as fair and righteous reasons for abortion, but also every other supposed reason, such as sex-selection. Along with these things I see as reasonable and worthy of the intense, grim decision of abortion will be vile reasons like that and who knows how many bubble-headed reactions to immature and irresponsible pregnancy. Fair exceptions and amendments now seem a better way to me, based on individual cases, than a blanket called legal abortion. It now seems to me that too many foul things just like sex-selection can easily hide within a blanket. That just flowed out of my mind and onto the keyboard, I hope it makes sense !
    All the best,

    Woody

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Interesting column, Christopher, as usual.

    Here’s the conundrum faced by politicians (or anyone else) who tries to put an end to selective-sex abortions. Women’s unfettered “right” to abortion-on-demand is entirely predicated on the idea that unborn babies have no rights at all; otherwise, of course, they’d certainly have the basic right to life.

    The moment any legislation is passed that prohibits selective-sex abortions, that’s an explicit acknowledgment that unborn babies have the right to equal treatment under the law as far as sex determination is concerned. But the moment unborn babies are endowed with ONE right, how can they possibly be deprived of ANY right?

    From that flows the logical conclusion that babies must have ALL the rights of any other person, since only “persons” can have rights in the first place, and therefore they have that first basic right to life itself.

    The natural consequence of that determination? Abortion-on-demand must be illegal because it deprives the unborn babies of that right to life. In fact, under that thesis any abortion not medically warranted to save the mother’s life can be logically deemed to be murder.

    As usual, leftist dogma shoots itself in the foot, if not the head.

    Liked by 1 person

Your comments are welcome!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s