'It's a Girl' - could be a death sentence: A Controversial Editorial in Canadian Medical Association Journal.

CBC News, Vancouver at 6 pm January 16, 2012 reported that a ‘controversial’ editorial has been written in the CMAJ by the editor-in-chief (interim), Dr. Rajinder Kale. Controversial? You bet! Dr. Kale advocates that the results of the child’s gender from an ultrasound should be withheld from the parents until the very late stages of the pregnancy. In his editorial, entitled, “It’s a Girl - Could Be a Death Sentence” (online www.cmaj.ca January 16, 2012) he states that a considerable number of Canadians in the South Asian and Chinese communities use these ultrasound results to choose boys over girls. In other words, if the ultrasound shows that the baby is a girl, an abortion is done. Boys are preferred over girls because girls prove very expensive before marriage when a dowry must be paid to the groom. He claims that this type of abortion “is the worst form of discrimination against women.” Dr. Kale cautions against painting all South Asians or Chinese with the same brush as some are against such practices. But he adds “...postponing the transmission of such information is a small price to pay to save thousands of girls in Canada. ...If Canada cannot control this repugnant practice, what hope do India and China have of saving millions of women?” It, is of course, what people in the pro-life movement have been saying all along. But now we have a medical doctor who has written that abortion should not be used as a means of selecting boys over girls. But the implication in the editorial is more than that isn’t it? For if the ‘foetus’ is a boy or a girl, it is not just a ‘growth’ or a ‘blob of tissue’ that the mother has a right to do away with. Another medical doctor, Dr. Parghit Singh was also interviewed on the CBC report and he said that the practice of aborting female babies is ‘barbaric’. He actually said ‘female babies’! These two are not those radical,hated fundamentalists or Catholics who go marching around abortion clinics. Here are two doctors from South Asian cultures themselves who recognize that aborting female babies, for sex-selection at least, is wrong. It is a step in the right direction and perhaps soon people will realize that aborting babies of any gender is ending the life of not just ‘a foetus’ but a real, human life, ‘a baby’. It’s discrimination all right - against both male and female babies. And is it a barbaric custom.

A Wise Doctor

A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said: 'Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help! My baby is not even 1 year old and I'm pregnant again. I don't want kids so close together. So the doctor said: 'Ok and what do you want me to do?' She said: 'I want you to end my pregnancy, and I'm counting on your help with this.' The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady: 'I think I have a better solution for your problem. It's less dangerous for you too.' She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to do as she asked. Then, he continued: 'You see, in order for you not to have to take care 2 babies at the same time, let's kill the one in your arms. This way, you could rest some before the other one is born. If we're going to kill one of them, it doesn't matter which one it is. There would be no risk for your body, if you choose the one in your arms. The lady was horrified and said: 'No doctor! How terrible! It's a crime to kill a child! 'I agree', the doctor replied. 'But you seemed to be OK with it, so I thought maybe that was the best solution.' The doctor smiled, realizing that he had made his point. He convinced the mom that there is no difference in killing a child that's already been born and one that's still in the womb. The crime is the same!

The Abortion Dilemma Part II

When I was training as a medical laboratory technologist (a long time ago), the term ‘foetus’ (or in the US ‘fetus’) was only used in the medical field. Ordinary people spoke about ‘unborn babies’ or ‘the baby’. Someone might ask expectant parents, “What are you going to name the baby?” or ask the expectant mother, “How is the baby?” She might answer, “This baby is very active. He is kicking me all the time.” or something similar. Have you seen an expectant mother wearing a t-shirt with an arrow pointing down to her stomach and a sign which says, “Baby here.” ? Did you ever see the UNESCO poster a while back, with a baby in utero, and the comment, “This might be the only home this baby will ever know.” ? Notice how the unborn baby is not called a ‘foetus’ in ordinary conversation. Only when one is talking about abortion is the word ‘foetus’ used. This is a clever move. We picture a ‘baby’ as something with big eyes, dimples, a cute smile, an innocent and very lovable being. A ‘foetus’ , on the other hand, does not sound all that human. It is not a ‘cute’ word. By using the word ‘foetus’ we can disassociate what we know as babies from the abortion discussion.
Maybe we should examine our use of language in this case. When do we use ‘foetus’ and when do we use ‘baby’? If an unborn child is ‘a baby’ how does it affect our feeling about abortion?
There is a newly released book, ‘Unplanned’ by Abby Johnson, a former director of an abortion clinic in the US. I suggest you read it. I haven’t read it yet, but have seen an interview on Focus on the Family and plan to read it soon.