Should women be told the sex of their babies?

[sprinkles]

oh and about the definition of when 'humanhood' begins...I heard about this crazy case where this drunk driver hit this woman's car who was like 8 1/2 months pregnant and caused her baby to die. She tried to have him charged with manslaughter for murdering her baby but was not able to because the baby was not yet a human under the law!

[lostintime]

From http://www.actionlife.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=44

 

Criminal Code of Canada - Root of discrimination.

 

It is incredible that as we enter the 21st century, the child in the womb still does not have the status of human being and is denied personhood. In spite of all the technological and scientific advances such as ultrasound and intrauterine photography giving a clear picture of life before birth, our legal system holds fast to the absurdity that the baby in the womb is not a human being. Section 223 of the Criminal code of Canada entitled 'When child becomes a human being" states:

(1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state from the body of its mother whether or not

(a) it has breathed

( it has an independent circulation

© the navel string is severed.

 

According to the criminal code, the baby becomes human only when it has fully emerged from its mother's body. Therefore, two months, two weeks, two seconds before birth, the preborn child is considered a non-human and receives no protection whatsoever under criminal law. While some abortion advocates do not deny the scientific evidence proving the humanity of the baby in the womb, they still cling to this piece of legal fiction to defend the right to abortion and maintain that abortion destroys the "products of conception" or a "potential person". Consequently, no one can be charged with homicide for committing an abortion when the victim is not considered human. In order to decriminalize abortion, it was necessary to have in place a state of legal affairs whereby abortion would be presented as not being a killing act or that there is no human being to be killed by the abortion procedure. This is where section 223 provided the convenient definition as to the moment when a child is recognized under the law as a human being. However, the reality still remains that abortion is indeed the killing of a human being. Canada needs a new definition of human being which will restore personhood to the unborn child for it is now this personhood upon which legal rights depend. The crux of the matter is that the child in the womb is not considered a separate legal entity because "person" in the legal sense means a human being with recognized legal rights. Some claim granting rights to the unborn child diminishes the rights of women. True equality however consists in giving the same right to life to all members of society. Canada is guilty of discrimination when it refuses to accord personhood and protection to the child in the womb. ...................

 

Don't really want to turn this into a pro life vs. pro choice debate, but the rationale for that decision is based on the fact that human life is defined when it can survive INDEPENDENTLY of the mother. The fetus may show signs of life, etc. in the womb, but it needs the mother to survive whereas when the fetus has completely separated physically from the body of the mother, with independent circulation, then it is an independent (key word) human being. And that rationale is that while the fetus relies on the support of the mother, she should have rights over what she wants to do with her body, but when it can survive on its own (or with hospital support, incubators whatever), then she no longer has those rights.

[lostintime]

oh and about the definition of when 'humanhood' begins...I heard about this crazy case where this drunk driver hit this woman's car who was like 8 1/2 months pregnant and caused her baby to die. She tried to have him charged with manslaughter for murdering her baby but was not able to because the baby was not yet a human under the law!

 

Horrible story yes, but I can see why they would make that decision, otherwise how would abortion be legal in Canada if you're giving the fetus rights for someone to be charged with manslaughter? Law is usually pretty stringent on details, and of course often seems "unfair" at times, but a slippery slope is difficult. How about someone who's pregnant 5 months? 1 week?

[kylamonkey]

 

As to this situation, I think people are going to figure it out on their own if they want to know that badly. I don't think the proposed solution would really put much of a dent in the problem.

 

This really is what it comes down to. Can you buy an ultrasound machine for the home/private clinic? Could women go to the US to find out the sex?

 

I'm going to go take a look at the pics we got today. There is clearly a sex indicated, and I bet if I did a little research I would be able to figure it out just from looking at the photos.

 

It really is more practical to know the sex of the baby- right now we can still find summer clothes for an infant on sale, for example.

 

I like his photo:

[HopeToBeGreen]

When would there ever be a good medical reason to tell someone the sex? On some level our medical system only provides for free medically relevant tests/procedures.

 

It would be medically relevant information if the parents carried a genetic disease that was influence by sex. So for example a male child would be at risk of expressing the disease while a female baby would not.

 

In this case, knowing the sex of the baby might lead the parents to seek additional genetic testing, alter the management of the pregnancy or to seek an abortion. Presumably this abortion would be based on the potential disability and would not just be pure sex selection.

[HopeToBeGreen]

Another aspect of this that no one has yet brought up is the problems that sex selection creates for the larger society. In countries like China, where sex selection is more prevalent, there are now more males than females. This means there are many males who will be unable to find wives.

 

One can imagine many negative consequences of this:

1. Many men will never have an opportunity to form a family and raise children of their own.
   
2. Settling down and starting a family tends to have a calming effect on men. For example, statistically married men have fewer car accidents because they tend to pursue less risky behaviour. When a significant number of men have no way to settle down will their behaviour become a problem for society? Will there be more crime, more car accidents, etc.
   
3. All the men without wives are going to look for a sexual outlet. This creates significant economic demand for prostitution and could lead to more exploitation of the females who are born. A darker read of the situation is that this would lead an increase in sex crime.
   

 

In the face of societal consequences like these, is society justified in stepping in to prevent sex selection? As others have pointed out, the suggestion of withholding the information is unlikely to work because there are other ways to find out. However, is society justified in taking other steps to prevent this practice?

[rmorelan]

It would be medically relevant information if the parents carried a genetic disease that was influence by sex. So for example a male child would be at risk of expressing the disease while a female baby would not.

 

In this case, knowing the sex of the baby might lead the parents to seek additional genetic testing, alter the management of the pregnancy or to seek an abortion. Presumably this abortion would be based on the potential disability and would not just be pure sex selection.

 

now that would be a valid reason!

[Madz25]

Lots of good points...

 

If they want a son to carry on the family name, but there are more males than females and hence some cannot find wives - wont their "family name" come to an end with the son anyway??

 

In terms of wanting to know sex b/c of genetic diseases - my thoughts are that if parents are THAT concerned and it is that big of a deal that they would want to abort if the child has this disease, then why not get amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling earlier on and do the genetic testing. At this stage it would be safer to abort the pregnancy than waiting for the biophysical profile normally done several weeks later?

 

I also don't agree with forcing women to go through a pregnancy and the risks of labour/delivery (why do people forget that giving birth is not a risk-free process??? not to mention the resulting urinary incontinence that you suffer when you get older if you had a vaginal delivery) just to avoid aborting altogether.

 

 

I definitely don't agree with aborting based on gender but what kind of life would that girl have if she were born into a family forced to keep her?

[rmorelan]

Lots of good points...

 

In terms of wanting to know sex b/c of genetic diseases - my thoughts are that if parents are THAT concerned and it is that big of a deal that they would want to abort if the child has this disease, then why not get amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling earlier on and do the genetic testing. At this stage it would be safer to abort the pregnancy than waiting for the biophysical profile normally done several weeks later?

 

QUOTE]

 

there is a small but present risk of spontaneous abortion with the other procedures(?)

[lostintime]

What about the ethics behind the idea of genetic selection which is almost what we're doing by selecting out "bad genes" for genetic diseases like Down's syndrome, etc? How is this "ethical"? What about the eventual implications on society for that? Anyone watch Gattica?

 

I just don't get how society embraces one but criticizes heavily for selection based on gender.

 

Good point about the risks of pregnancy on the female. People always tend to forgot those.

[Madz25]

 

there is a small but present risk of spontaneous abortion with the other procedures(?)

 

yes, but if this genetic disease is so serious than the small risk is worth finding out, no? and if you're going to abort if this disease is present, then it's safer to abort earlier than later.

 

in terms of risk vs. benefit, i'd say it's better to risk the invasive tests if your sole reason to find out the gender is for this genetic disease. and with genetic testing, even if your child IS the gender at risk for having the disease, you can directly find out whether the fetus has it or not instead of assuming the fetus does because it is of a certain gender.

[sprinkles]

One can imagine many negative consequences of this:

1. Many men will never have an opportunity to form a family and raise children of their own.
   
2. Settling down and starting a family tends to have a calming effect on men. For example, statistically married men have fewer car accidents because they tend to pursue less risky behaviour. When a significant number of men have no way to settle down will their behaviour become a problem for society? Will there be more crime, more car accidents, etc.
   
3. All the men without wives are going to look for a sexual outlet. This creates significant economic demand for prostitution and could lead to more exploitation of the females who are born. A darker read of the situation is that this would lead an increase in sex crime.
   

 

In the face of societal consequences like these, is society justified in stepping in to prevent sex selection? As others have pointed out, the suggestion of withholding the information is unlikely to work because there are other ways to find out. However, is society justified in taking other steps to prevent this practice?

 

 

Some excellent points made here but again I think we need to realize that our culture in Canada is VERY different! I don't think we will ever EVER get to such a point!!! The only place in the world that I know of that does this is China. And that is because of the one child rule.

 

And yes, now the problems you mentioned above are actually becoming a reality! These men have no wives! Whats worse is that... 'forget' prostitution and rape (which is just direct 'sex') but people want relationships...and are willing to go to extremes to get it! There has been an increase rise in female kidnappings in China. Young girls are kidnapped and sold to the highest bidder in some rural small town. One story I read was about a 20 year old girl who was kidnapped and taken to a town far away from her own (she had no idea where she was) where she was married to some old guy and raped until she got pregnant - so that they could have a child. And the worst part? The entire community kept an eye on her to make sure she wouldn't try to leave!!!!!

 

I'm sure we would all agree that we would not want anything like this happening in Canada but I'm sure we can all agree that this wouldnt happen! The ONLY reason that this is ONLY occurring in China and has ONLY started recently is because of the one child rule!

[lostintime]

I'm sure we would all agree that we would not want anything like this happening in Canada but I'm sure we can all agree that this wouldnt happen! The ONLY reason that this is ONLY occurring in China and has ONLY started recently is because of the one child rule!

 

Uh actually it hasn't ONLY recently started, such horrible things (stealing girls etc) have been happening for a long time and often a sign of power, e.g. from one tribe to another. I don't have exact stats on whether it's happening "more frequently", would be interested in seeing those.

 

And so over-population of the world is a better alternative then the one-child policy?

[sprinkles]

Uh actually it hasn't ONLY recently started, such horrible things (stealing girls etc) have been happening for a long time and often a sign of power, e.g. from one tribe to another. I don't have exact stats on whether it's happening "more frequently", would be interested in seeing those.

 

And so over-population of the world is a better alternative then the one-child policy?

 

no you misunderstood me. I'm saying this MASS abortion of girls and abandonment of girls in China is a recent phenomena as a result of the one child rule. Obviously kidnapping is not a recent event

 

And I am not commenting on the pro/cons of one-child policy... just that the one-child policy is the reason why informing patients of the sex of their child is illegal in China.

 

(If I were to comment on the one-child policy I would say it is horrible - because of the limits people go, but at the same time its necessary I guess(?) - China has moved towards controlling it and I heard will soon lift the limit (by the end of the decade)! Meanwhile countries like India will continue to suffer due to their lack of efforts in preventing/limiting their population growth)

[sprinkles]

p.s. Lisa Ling made an excellent documentary called China's Lost Girls which I really enjoyed and would highly recommend. It follows american families who adopt female chinese babies, but also looks at the underlying problems (ex. abortion abandonment and kidnappings etc)

[HopeToBeGreen]

I'm sure we would all agree that we would not want anything like this happening in Canada but I'm sure we can all agree that this wouldnt happen! The ONLY reason that this is ONLY occurring in China and has ONLY started recently is because of the one child rule!

 

I believe India also has a problem with sex selection. In that country sons are seen as an economic asset to the family (they generate income and look after their parents in old age) while daughters are a liability (you must pay a dowry when they marry and once married they serve another family and do not look after their parents).

 

Any country where women are not treated as equal would be prime for this trend once they reach a level of wealth that makes the technology widely available. People in many countries and cultures around the world value women much less than men (Ex Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, many African countries).

 

In Canada we have high rates of immigration and immigrants will bring values from their own countries that may lead them to continue to pursue sex selection here. Once enough people are doing it, even if they come from ethnic communities, the sex balance is upset and the society as a whole faces the consequences.

[sprinkles]

yes in those cultures a son is more valued unfortunately but that doesnt mean there is a massive abortion of females going on in Saudi Arabia (in fact there should be a preference for girls...where else would they get their 4 wives each from?!?! lolll)

 

In those '3rd world' countries such as Afghanistan, Indian slums and Africa males are preferred yes but females are needed to - to do the house work! Everyone knows about how the males are sent off to school during the day and the females are expected to clean the house and prepare the meals and help raise the younger children etc etc

[HopeToBeGreen]

yes in those cultures a son is more valued unfortunately but that doesnt mean there is a massive abortion of females going on in Saudi Arabia (in fact there should be a preference for girls...where else would they get their 4 wives each from?!?! lolll)

 

In those '3rd world' countries such as Afghanistan, Indian slums and Africa males are preferred yes but females are needed to - to do the house work! Everyone knows about how the males are sent off to school during the day and the females are expected to clean the house and prepare the meals and help raise the younger children etc etc

 

Women are always needed. They do most of the work that makes the world go around. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that parents recognize that it is their job to bring girls into the world when it may be disadvantageous for them.

 

An analogue in Canadian society would be garbage collectors. Garbage collectors are absolutely required by society. We would all suffer if there weren't enough people taking the garbage away. However, I bet you can't name one person who hopes their kids will grow up the be garbage collectors.

[A Second Daniel]

The unborn conceptus is considered by law to be but an organ connected to the mother. Should the mother want it removed for any reason - it's a girl, its got a genetic disease, she can't afford to raise a kid, she doesn't like the father anymore, her culture values women at a lower level than men, she just feels like it now, etc. - then she is free to do so.

 

Regardless of the reason, the woman should have the right and opportunity to safely abort an embryo or fetus. Sex-selective abortion may be abhorrent to some, but outlawing what a woman can do with her own reproductive parts is even worse and has repercussions for us all - it would essentially be the state dictating that a woman absolutely must endure the risks of pregnancy, the pains of birth, and the burden of childcare to uphold some arbitrary societal standard. Not only will this not work (look at other arbitrary societal standards such as drug use and the prior outlawing of homosexuality) but it will also put such women at higher risk for death and illness that they would otherwise not have to be subjected to.

 

It's not strictly a woman's reproductive parts in question, but a developing sovereign being in the uterus. There should be such a thing as an unborn child which has rights that we can defend on behalf of it-in spite of its incomplete consciousness or underdeveloped nature. The debate should boil down to which stage of development we can apply those rights. And certainly some guidelines seem to be feasible for this purpose- a child 1 day before being born clearly should have rights, but the more reductionist you go, the more they should be restricted. A single celled zygote probably wouldn't fit the bill since most end up spontaneously terminating on their own anyway, otherwise closet masturbation would be on par with genocide. The more mature it gets, the more rights can be applied because it will have at some point the entire arsenal of human organs for sustenance, otherwise it wouldn't have made it that far if life/Mother Nature/God hadn't intended on it doing so.

 

In response to the practical difficulties that a woman may face to getting pregnant, well, can I say she should have seen it coming (no pun intended)? Sex is fun and great, but a frivolous and ignorant attitude will lead to unwanted pregnancies. If she is not careful with her monthly timing, or having unprotected sex, or getting contraception, or the thousands of things and techniques available in consultation with the male then she should be cautious at what can happen. Being frivolous and ignorant of the serious consequences of sex, and law for that matter, is no excuse, much less a defence.

[lostintime]

And no punishment for the guy eh? He can just freely go ahead and besides the risk of STI's, it's all fun and games and just because of the 50/50 lottery, it makes it okay that he doesn't have to bear the consequences of pregnancy/delivery/beyond? And that it's fair that too bad so sad for the girl who should've thought of these things before "indulging herself" and now she should face the music, whereas the guy who probably thought the same thing, doesn't make the same risks to his health and moral/ethical obligations?

 

The other argument is that the paradox of an unborn child have rights when it is purely dependent on someone else physically, and it makes sense in that argument to draw the line at which it can physically support itself without the existence of another human being (physiologically ~ not financially, emotionally blah blah).

[A Second Daniel]

And no punishment for the guy eh? He can just freely go ahead and besides the risk of STI's, it's all fun and games and just because of the 50/50 lottery, it makes it okay that he doesn't have to bear the consequences of pregnancy/delivery/beyond? And that it's fair that too bad so sad for the girl who should've thought of these things before "indulging herself" and now she should face the music, whereas the guy who probably thought the same thing, doesn't make the same risks to his health and moral/ethical obligations?

 

The other argument is that the paradox of an unborn child have rights when it is purely dependent on someone else physically, and it makes sense in that argument to draw the line at which it can physically support itself without the existence of another human being (physiologically ~ not financially, emotionally blah blah).

 

It's not one sided because significant consultation is done between both parties. The male makes due with his condoms, or even contraceptives in conjunction with the women because he also has to gain/lose. But don't understate that the burden is on the woman because 9 months of child bearing is at risk here. The nature of being human means that when it comes to child bearing (and nursing the child after birth), women have more to deal with, so it only makes sense they plan things a little better.

 

By the same token, you wouldn't expect the gentler sex to be working in construction or lumbering, which they don't. But you wouldn't take it so far as to accuse society of being sexist for that. Gender roles are unique and they have their own preoccupations to be worried about.

[lostintime]

Yeah they both use contraceptives, but at the end of the day, he doesn't have to bear the health burden. And because females have more to burden, the next logical point should be that they should have more control of what happens to their bodies rather than they should just plan for it better. And even contraceptives, it sucks because I'm not sure about exact stats, but female condoms I believe aren't as effective as male ones, and birth control pills, IUD's are more invasive/more risks than a male condom which the female often has way less control over.

 

That's not really a good analogy, this is not really a gender role issue, but a biological phenomenon. For jobs, there is always a choice and shifts. But unless with some crazy science, in 99.99999% of the time, women are the ones begin pregnant/delivering/nursing.

[Erk]

Abrahamic religions: after 120 days I think (when the soul in put in you).

Atheists: When you get born (they don't believe in a soul).

Others: I don't know.

 

"Atheists" are not a universal group and hold many different opinions, but I think the philosophical consistency among atheists is not that there is some magical humanising moment at birth, because that would be inconsistent with premature birth and caesarian section. I believe most atheists who have taken the time to think about it feel a fetus becomes a baby when it's able to live freely if taken out of its mother. Since that's hard to define, I personally say somewhere in the middle of the second trimester around the point when the baby's brain develops enough to understand something of what's going on in the world around it. I'm aware that's a fuzzy deliniation... for this reason I think anything after first trimester is on very shaky footing ethically, but still doable, and anything into late-second-to-third trimester should be safety reasons only.

 

You'd be hard pressed to find an educated atheist who thought a fetus had no individuality until it exited the mother.

 

 

 

 

With regards to the topic at hand, as some have pointed out, this well publicised argument has no ethical footing. If one is pro-choice, the mother has a choice whether or not to abort, in which case there is ethically nothing wrong with early term abortion for any reason. If one is anti-choice, the mother may not abort by her own choice (generally only for health reasons, but I know different folks have different ideas) in which case this would never be an issue. Back-alley abortions would be, but they're outside the purview of medical policymaking generally speaking.

 

Simply denying the mother the right to know the sex of the fetus smacks of great paternalism. "We can't see how you would use this information unless you plan to abort, so we'll refuse to tell you." There is no good way to make that argument.

 

I am actually quite angry about this topic, as it's become a catalyst for racist indictment of our immigrant populations, as though they're all femicidal maniacs.

[kylamonkey]

Further to this thread, and because it's not fully "dead" yet, and because some of you might be interested, here's an article about the "way it was" for women who wanted an abortion before it was legal. Warning- it's not a pleasant or pretty article.

 

http://motherjones.com/politics/2004/09/way-it-was?page=1

 

I'll confess the whole issue makes me uncomfortable- it really creates some cognitive dissonance between my opinion that both girls and boys should have protection and my pro-reproductive-choice position.

[A Second Daniel]

What nature intends is for us to die at 30 from cholera or from a barbarian invasion. We don't do that anymore because we have risen above nature with technology and the rule of law. Nature in this instance is irrelevant: it is not a thinking being with a plan, it is a set of patterns that we humans can exploit to our benefit. If you believe in God, that's ok, but God matters not in a society governed by human rights, science and logic.

 

Sex is great. And if women can have it without having to endure pregnancy, then its even better! If we do "what nature intends" perhaps we should stop using condoms? Perhaps we should spread around HIV?

 

To say that the conceptus has more rights than the mother that carries it expresses an explicit notion that a woman's ultimate purpose is to be a vessel for a fetus and that her will and life are secondary. Birth and pregnancy are not safe events - they are fraught with risks and disasters. A woman should have the right to prevent those risks and disasters by employing abortion.

 

Furthermore, the moralistic argument for the anti-choice stance fails in practicality, as did the "war on drugs" and prostitution, and the discrimination against homosexuality. People still do illegal drugs, and in doing so increase their risks of disease. Underground prostitution puts women and their patrons at a higher risk of disease and violence. Gay sex, though outlawed for so long, was still being had by gay men. And abortions, even when they were illegal, were still being done in back alleys with coat hangers. As I have heard, in the bad part of Vancouver years ago, the women's hospital had an entire ward dedicated to septic backalley abortions. Clearly the moralistic stance hurts more people than helps them.

 

If abortions do not agree with your own moral or religious stance, then you are free not to have them. It's not like we're arguing for mandatory abortions.

 

You've totally misconstrued my point and indulged to the utmost possibility in the straw man.

 

My brief mention to nature was limited to the case in question, and by no means was it meant to be universal. Of course nature may 'intend' one to die at 30 by cholera, but we have an ethical obligation to help this person. Your analysis has stripped my point of discretion, which is what tempers universal principles. The idea of denying a woman access to abortion is based on the fact that a sovereign person is now developing, which has been 'okayed' by nature. At no point is this an issue over a woman's rights to her reproductive parts-we are well beyond that point now because a separate unborn child is developing with rights that should be defended. The woman is not just a birth-vessel, but when a child begins to develop it does have rights, and to ignore this is to be lazy. This is not a religious stance, either, that you accuse me of. One would think that infanticide committed by animals like lions does not belong to a complex society such as ours, which it doesn't.

 

Being lazy, it seems to me, is a good descriptor of the situations you defend. A woman who frivolously gets pregnant can just go ahead and get that abortion. As I've stated earlier, coitus has consequences unique to each sex (male/female), and it simply happens to be that females must plan a little better. There's no getting around this fact. The risks are there if you want to take them without planning effectively with the male partner. Being in a good society means that we don't have clinics dedicated to tramps needing abortions every now and then, in my opinion. It also involves rising above laziness and taking control of matters in your hands. Nobody said doing good and having a high standard of morality was going to be easy.

 

Finally, I'd like to mention something unrelated that you alluded to about God being absent in a society with human rights, science, logic...The western world as we know it today (and definitely North America) simply would not exist in their splendour if we didn't build, from the bottom up, a society based on Judeo-Christian values. Our toleration, and indeed our acceptance, of others helped fuel the secularism and humanitarian goodness that is embodied by the west.