Article content continued

Indeed, the absurdity is brought into high relief when put in the context of suspected sex selection abortions in certain Asian-Canadian communities. A study recently released by the Canadian Medical Association Journal found 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.” Certainly, that’s what the study’s numbers suggest, given that the Indo-Canadian women assessed gave birth to disproportionately high numbers of male second (and subsequent) children.It is possible that these statistics will force Canada to confront and rethink its glaring absence of an abortion law; I certainly hope that is the case. But in the mean time, so long as sex selection remains legal, would it not be preferable to allow parents to choose the gender of their children at the embryonic stage, before any pregnancy has occurred, rather than forcing them to wait until the child is developed enough for her genitals to be clearly visible on an ultrasound? Whatever moral scruples one might have about destroying a viable barely-visible morula, shouldn’t those scruples be far greater about suctioning a healthy fetus, complete with limbs and face, from a womb?

The problems do not go away if the issue is examined from a mother-centred perspective.

(One interesting result of the extensive coverage of sex selection abortions is that, as bioethicist Margaret Somerville pointed out last winter, it’s getting harder to discuss the abortion issue with an exclusive focus on the pregnant woman. As the aggrieved party in these stories, the fetus is taking centre stage as a — if not THE — relevant entity to be considered in any policy decisions. It’s going to be hard to go back to looking at the fetus as just another part of a woman’s body.)