In Canada, the issue of abortion generally lurks just under the surface of society, but abortion has again become major news, ironically as the result of a study on birth not abortion. The National Post and other news outlets reported the Canadian Medical Association Journal in its latest issue published a study http://bit.ly/Ig9e1G on non-multiple births occurring in Ontario between 2002 and 2007. One of the study’s findings indicated the majority of second children born to mothers from India and Korea tended to be boys and for third children, the majority of male births increases even more in women born in India. The study does not provide evidence the male majority is the result of gender-based abortion, but pundits are using the study as evidence of a culturally based form of female foeticide existing in Canada.
This is not the first time the issue of gender-based abortion has become news as a result of theCanadian Medical Association Journal. In January of this year, Dr. Rajendra Kale wrote an editorial called “‘It’s a girl’ - could be a death sentence” in which he states female foeticide is being practiced by some “Asian” immigrants in Canada. Dr. Kale believes doctors should not reveal the sex of the fetus to mothers until after 30 weeks into the pregnancy. On the heels of Dr. Kale’s editorial, an Angus Reid Opinion Poll on the issue indicated 66% of the women polled felt there should be a law governing gender-based abortions. To further inflame the issue, The Indo-Canadian Voice, a newspaper targeting the South Asian community in British Columbia recently ran an ad on its website from an American reproductive clinic promoting their services “for family balancing purposes”.
India and China have laws prohibiting gender-based abortions, but how actively they are being enforced is not known. The reason for the laws in those two countries appears to have originated as a method to deal with a gender imbalance in the population rather than any morality based repudiation of the practice. Some other countries also have prohibitive laws on gender-based abortions and others, notably the United States are moving in that direction, but what of Canada?
Abortions became legal in Canada in medically necessary cases in 1969. In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled the abortion law infringed the Charter rights of women and since then there have effectively been no legal restrictions on abortion in Canada.
Arguments by the abortion rights movement in favour of access to legal abortions focus on the right of a woman to be the master of her own destiny; the argument suggests as it is the woman’s body only she has the right to determine what happens to it. The issue of gender-based abortion seems to be causing a rift within the abortion rights movement. Some in the movement argue that abortion based on gender should not be permitted .
When members of the abortion rights movement begin to suggest limitations on access to abortion, the right to an abortion in Canada begins to be in jeopardy. The anti-abortion movement have always used the issue of morality as one of their tools to promote laws prohibiting abortion. When supporters of abortion rights begin to suggest limitations on abortion based on an issue of morality it cannot but strengthen the movement to legislate abortion in Canada.
For sake of argument let’s agree that gender-based abortions are morally repugnant. Why does that mean the door should be reopened on legislating abortion? There are many that find it equally morally repugnant that 16% of abortions are done because the “woman’s life would be changed too much” and 21% are done because the woman is “not ready for the responsibility”. Women daily make decisions to have abortions based on the risk of a child having a medical condition and many find that equally morally repugnant. Either a woman has a right to control her reproductive rights or she doesn’t. Exceptions no matter how heartfelt must not be permitted to risk the loss of legal abortions in Canada.
The issue of gender-based abortion must be countered through education, not legislation if abortion rights are to be protected. As there is no law prohibiting abortion the issue of why an abortion is chosen must remain immaterial. To support limitations on what is a valid reason for an abortion will show the anti-abortion movement and any government opposing abortion that the chance to legislate abortion is once again at hand. That risk is too great to be allowed to happen.
