Canadian Politics

[Earniel]

Some would say that, but certainly not feminists, who support sex selection as another legitimate choice for women to make, and which is none of our business.

Excuse me?!

Seriously Inked, where do you keep finding this insulting crap and propaganda? Yuk.

[inked]

Quoting The National Post which is essaying on ads in British Columbia...

"A U.S. fertility clinic that placed an advertisement for sex-selection services in a British Columbia newspaper is doing nothing that should be criticized by anyone supporting Canada’s free-for-all baby market."

Which was the commentary to the news piece clearly cited in the editorial:
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-p...952/story.html which reads in full"

"A fertility clinic based in Washington state is advertising sex selection in a B.C. newspaper for Indo-Canadians.

An ad for the Washington Center for Reproductive Medicine appears in the Indo-Canadian Voice, encouraging readers to "create the family you want" using reproductive technologies.

The Bellevue clinic's advertisement appears in the print edition of the weekly Vancouver-area paper and on the publication's website.

Sabrina Atwal said she was "appalled" by the ad because it highlights the low value of women and girls in the Indo-Canadian community.

"A lot of times, girls are fighting for their lives before they're even born," said Ms. Atwal, a project director with the Indo-Canadian Women's Association in Edmonton.

Sex selection is already in the spotlight after a study released on Monday showed South Korean-and Indianborn women in Canada have an unusually high proportion of boys born as second babies.

The study in the Canadian Medical Association Journal found the ratio of boys to girls for mothers of all ethnicities on their first birth was about 1.05 to one. The number stayed fairly consistent for second births for mothers from most countries.

However, the ratio grew to 1.11 for Indian-born mothers and 1.2 for South Korean-born mothers.

"Our findings raise the possibility that couples originating from India may be more likely than Canadian-born couples to use prenatal sex determination and terminate a second or subsequent pregnancy if the fetus is female," says the study, which was led by Joel Ray, a physician in Toronto.

The Washington Center for Reproductive Medicine performs biopsies on embryos slated for in vitro fertilization and tests their DNA to determine the sex. Selected embryos are then implanted in the uterus. The process, known as preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), will "virtually guarantee successful gender selection," according to the centre's website.

Canada's Assisted Human Reproduction Act, which became law in 2004, prohibits sex selection of an in vitro embryo, except in the case of a sex-linked disease or disorder.

The Washington Center for Reproductive Medicine and the Indo-Canadian Voice could not immediately be reached for comment."

It seemed to me that political. Is it not? And it is definitely about Canada and Indo-Canadians. I erred how?

[Earniel]

There were a number of things that first article you linked to could have been.

It could indeed have talked about the state of the Canadian legislation concerning parents gender-shopping babies. This would have been a valid topic.

Or it could have looked further into the ethics of clinics knowingly aiming this sort of advertising at the Indo-Canadian population because of the cultural, active preference for males. This too would have been a worthwhile discussion.

HOWEVER. The article chose to do neither. All that was merely an introduction to the real focus: feminist bashing. It levels a baseless, emotionally-charged accussation at feminists (OMG, feminists support gender-based abortions!) and then pulls everything to out of context so that feminists not only look morally-suspect (Crude? You bet.) but ridiculous and self-defeating too (haha, look at those silly women, supporting something which will only diminish their number!).

I mean, WTF!? That assumption came from so far out there, Voyager II said hello.

First of all, feminism is a catchphrase for a good deal of different groups and viewpoints, self-identified of other. To name a few, there are feminists who strive for more rights for woman, feminists who want gender-equality, and even feminists who want woman to gain dominion over men.

But somehow -with absolute certainty if you go by this article- ALL THOSE PEOPLE support the right on abortion of female fetusses if your culture finds male children more valuable. Where is the data supporting this assertion? [sarcasm alert] Ah, but that isn't important, what really matters is that those uppity feminists need to be taken down a peg or too, isn't it? No need to base one's arguments on anything rational. Heck, why go for a scientific, data-based opionion when baseless, emotion-driven accussations are so much more fun? Statistics is such hard work too.

Secondly, seriously, do I really have to explain how campaining for women's right to a legal and safe abortion DOES NOT EQUATE supporting practises that will negatively impact gender-ratios?

And thirdly, abortion and in vitro sex-selection really are not the same thing.

The article's trash.

[inked]

The Indo-Canadian Voice ad clearly aims at sex selection, if you view the picture of the ad.

The clinic prominently offers sex selection: http://www.seattleivf.com/ . Check out the lefthand links on the home page for sex selection.

You can check out the ad et alia here:

Indo-canadian Voice Ads - News Results


Seattle-area fertility clinic sparks controversy with gender-selection ads Q13 FOX Seattle - Apr 19 06:30pm
Fury as newspaper prints adverts offering parents-to-be the chance to chose the... Daily Mail - Apr 20 08:49am
U.S. clinic offers sex selection service to Indo-Canadians CTV.ca - Apr 18 05:08am

Of course, the paper claims innocence of knowledge of the Canadian law:
Baby sex selection ad targets Indo-Canadians - Canada - CBC News
The newspaper carrying the ad, the Indo-Canadian Voice, based in Surrey, B.C., says it didn't know the advertised procedure was illegal in Canada and would contact their ...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/.../sex-selection...

And the statistics show that it's all a massive right wing conspiracy to discredit ... cultural preference, right, Earniel?

[Earniel]

Nicely side-stepping the issues I raised about the article you linked to, right, Inked?

I think I just better stop reading the links you post from now on. Conspiracies and anti-feminist rants are not my sort of stuff.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by inked

However, the ratio grew to 1.11 for Indian-born mothers and 1.2 for South Korean-born mothers.

Is that a statistically significant difference?

[GrayMouser]

From the Post article:

Since there is no law on abortion in this country anything goes. Why should a fertility clinic be any different? A clinic that offers women a choice on which babies to have – male or female – is simply providing the public an accurate account of its services. So the Washington Center for Reproductive Medicine is merely availing itself of the opportunities Canada offers when it encourages readers to “create the family you want” using reproductive technologies

Since we previously had this discussion on the AbortionII thread, (p25), you know that this statement is false. Offering sex-selection services is specifically banned in Canada, which is why the service operates in the US. Since the author knows this too, she is simply lying. Canada does not offer those opportunities; Canada specifically bans them- the US is the country offering the opportunities.

Unseemly and distasteful as it may seem to some Canadians

like the majority of Parliament from all parties hat banned the practise?,

the clinic would be perfectly justified in going further. Why not be 　specific, with a two-for-one special on male twins? Crude? You bet. Barbaric? Some would say that,

like Canadians, who have banned this practice- unlike our free-enterprise supporting cousins to the south

but certainly not feminists, who support sex selection as another legitimate choice for women to make, and which is none of our business.

it is at this point one wonders whether the writer is brain-dead, entirely ignorant about the issue, or simply a flat-out liar. Since she is writing for a conservative paper like the Post, it could be a toss-up, but I'll put my money on 'liar'. Opposition to sex-selection is, has been, and will continue to be, largely driven by feminists. Anybody who has paid any attention to the issue is aware of that; anyone who denies it is either completely ignorant or a bald-faced liar.

The irony is that if sex selection were more popular, and was as uncontrolled in other countries as it is in Canada, it might eventually reduce the ranks of feminists by artificially restricting the growth of the female population in general.

Sweet Jesus, how stupid can the readers of this article actually be? Do they have the brains to wipe their own noses or tie their own shoelaces?

THE REASON THE COMPANY IS OPERATING OUT OF SEATTLE WHILE OFFERING SERVICES TO CANADIANS IS BECAUSE ITS ACTIVITIES ARE BANNED IN CANADA!!!!

[inked]

GM, the anything goes refers to the USA as I understand the article, and the clinic is therefore subverting Canadian law. The point of the article is that subversion. What most seem to have missed is that the complaint is precisely that a US for-profit organization is deliberately engaged in that process and the American line of thought that leads to that outcome. The most egregious conduct is laid at American feet on the alleged basis of feminist and abortion thought in the USA.

The question would seem to be what, if any, political action should Canada take to prevent such subversion?

This also plainly illustrates that the USA has the most liberal abortion policy in the world and ACTIVELY exports that policy? The discussion of feminism's support for abortion is aimed at that mind-set, not Canada. One might also note that "family planning" has long been one of America's export with its foreign aid.

The sex-selection allows an unnatural change in the male:female ratio, Gaffer. That is what constitutes the evidence that cultural preferences for males are being catered to by this cross-border activity. See here for an intro http://www.thenewatlantis.com/public...nst-baby-girls

Earniel, given that the article is about the effect of American legality of abortion invading and subverting Canadian law, regardless of your reaction to the alleged causes, what should Canada do politically, if anything?

Band the ads?
Inhibit cross-border "medical" care?
Build a wall or fence?
Complain to the Federal Government about subversion officially?
Let cultural preferences not interfere?
Let cultural preferences interfere?
Apply the current law?

This is a real hot-potato politically. Of course, historically, too much maleness about results in wars and stuff due to testosterone, right? So...

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by inked

Earniel, given that the article is about the effect of American legality of abortion invading and subverting Canadian law, regardless of your reaction to the alleged causes, what should Canada do politically, if anything?

Oh that's what the article was about? Funny, I couldn't tell, I was pretty sure it was about belittling feminists. I'd hazard the guess you're reading a lot more into this article than there actually is in.

Apply the current law?

Well, duh. If this clinic advertises in vitro sex-selection (still not the same as abortion, it bears repeating) and if as you yourself have stated, sex-selection is against the Canadian law except in cases of genetic disorders, do you really need me to put 2 and 2 together?

[inked]

I'm not sure. Does 2+2 = censorship in Canada? Is censorship politically alive in Canada or viable or just in-vitro selection?

[Earniel]

Censorship, what does that have to do with anything in that badly written opinion-piece? No, wait, no need to answer that question, I bet it's going to have something to do with that conspiracy you mentioned earlier.

[The Gaffer]

Only a conservative could see the logic of linking feminism to this kind of industry.

The real cause is the free market in health care that operates in the US. Here we have a system where the wealthy can buy pretty much whatever they want - including a vast raft of high-tech stuff that doesn't work - while the poor are left to die of their preventable diabetes complications.

Funny how we don't see anti-abortionists lining up behind health reform. Could it be that they are a bunch of hypocrites?

[Rían]

Or perhaps the pro-life people have noticed that the people seeking health care are, like, at least alive...

You have to pick your battles.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Is that a statistically significant difference?

Yes. The natural rate is 1.05 males to 1.00 females; in primitive societies this evens out by adulthood as male babies are more fragile and susceptible to disease, and I believe (though I have no evidence to back this up) the propensity of males to do stupid/daring things (your choice of adjective):
"Hold my beer and watch me do this!!"

Anything above about 1.07/8 starts to seriously skew the population.

This is a very serious problem in countries in South and East Asia, including my adopted homeland, Taiwan, because of the patriarchal assumptions of those cultures; which carry over into immigrant communities.

I was forcefully reminded of this last week when I gave a class of Taiwanese senior high school students an essay assignment asking them to explain the meanings of their names and who gave it to them.

Three girls out of twelve had very traditional names meaning things like "Bring more brothers" or "hope the next one's a boy"; they all reported these names were chosen by their grandparents, sometimes over their more modern-minded parents' objections.

[GrayMouser]

As I mentioned in my last go-round on this with inked, you could divorce this from the abortion question simply by imagining a pill that suppresses either the X-chromosome or the Y-chromosome in males, guaranteeing the production of boys or girls respectively (you could even market them in blue or pink).

Is there a moral issue there?

I have three sons, and while I wouldn't have aborted the third in hopes of getting a girl, if someone had offered me the choice before I might have taken it- sorry, Jordan, or should I say Jordana?

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

I'm not sure. Does 2+2 = censorship in Canada? Is censorship politically alive in Canada or viable or just in-vitro selection?

Yes, as a matter of fact censorship is alive and kicking - witness Section 13 (1) of the Human rights Act:

The controversy regarding the CHRC's practices comes from its enforcement of Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which states that it is discriminatory to communicate by phone or Internet any material "that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt."

Borovoy further added that:

"Although it's true that they have nailed some genuine hatemongers with it, [Sec 13] has nevertheless been used or threatened to be used against a wide variety of constituencies who don't bear the slightest resemblance to the kind of hatemongers that were originally envisioned: anti-American protesters, French-Canadian nationalists, a film sympathetic to South Africa's Nelson Mandela, a pro-Zionist book, a Jewish community leader, Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses, and even a couple years ago, a pro-Israeli speaker was briefed about the anti-hate law by a police detective before he went in to make a speech."[1]
....
Mary Agnes Welch, president of the Canadian Association of Journalists stated that Human rights commissions "were never meant to act as language nannies. The current system allows complainants to chill the speech of those they disagree with by entangling targets in a human rights bureaucracy that doesn't have to operate under the same strict rules of defence as a court."[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadia..._controversies

God Bless the First Amendment: would that Canada had the equivalent-the 2nd we can do without.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Or perhaps the pro-life people have noticed that the people seeking health care are, like, at least alive...

You have to pick your battles.

This seems a surprising battle to give up on: regulating the market to prevent this sort of service being offered to persons from another country, or indeed from your own country. You might find that you have a lot more support than for outlawing abortion as a whole.

I believe it is illegal in this country, for example. It is one of the reasons that radiographers won't tell people the sex of the foetus from an ultrasound scan.

That's a good example GM, another might be infertility services, which offer sex selection. Again, however, it is only legal in this country for specific reasons (i.e. medical ones) and using specific methods. That seems to have the balance about right to me.

[inked]

Oh, I say, South Korea has a much larger problem than Canada:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...aby-flesh.html

You would have thought that the Chinese would have realized that Jonathan Swift was joking in his essay on how to feed the Irish..........

But, really, ya'll, how does one police cross-country cultural ideals? Should Canada's trump those of the USA or South Korea's China's?

What defines the narrow line of one social equality from the other's?