Over the past few months, the issue of sex-selective abortion has been a topic of debate in the opinion sections of Canadian newspapers, triggered by allegations that the practice of selectively aborting female fetuses due to a preference for male children was taking place here in Canada.

One of the most commonly discussed proposals to combat sex-selective abortion is not to disclose to the mother the sex of the fetus until she has reached 30 weeks of pregnancy, as once a mother has entered the third trimester it is difficult to obtain an abortion in Canada for non-medical reasons. Based on information provided by Statistics Canada for the year 2003, the latest available, only 320 abortions took place among women over 20 weeks pregnant, and of those beyond 24 weeks, all were performed in cases of lethal fetal abnormality.

Sex-selective pregnancy or abortion is sexism at its height. It is the innate preference of one sex over another, and in all regards is abhorrent. It is not something which should be practiced nor condoned, but regulating abortion is not how to address nor solve the issue.

The issue of sex-selective pregnancy is not restricted only to abortion, and creating legislation relative to abortion does not address other issues of sex-selective pregnancy, often is just referred to as “family balancing.”

In vitro fertilization (IVF)– fertilizing an egg outside the body then returning it to the uterus for gestation– treatments are able to determine with great accuracy what the sex of a child will be before it is implanted into the mother. Although this practice for non-medical reasons– preference for one sex over another, opposed to medical reasons, where certain diseases or conditions can be passed on only to one sex– has been illegal in Canada since 2004, it is still available to Canadians who travel to the United States, where it is legal.

The worst issue related to this is that it is, in effect, legislating abortion. Canada’s laws governing abortion should be a point of pride, and it is essential in giving women the right to choose. It is their body and their decision, however having such limitations surrounding abortion could potentially be very damaging to that.

It is possible to know the sex of a fetus as soon as 10 weeks of gestation. If this kind of legislation takes place, then it would open the door for other similar forms of legislation relating to that, such that if a woman knows what the sex of her child is, she can’t terminate it, due to a fear that it could be considered sex-selective abortion.

If women are not permitted to a legal, clinical abortion, then it may simply encourage those who desire an abortion to look elsewhere. Abortions performed illegally carry with them risks that they will be performed by someone who is not totally capable or qualified to perform them, or will be performed in surroundings which don’t meet the sanitary standards required to prevent infection or other health risks to the mother.

According to the World Health Organization, in areas where safe sanctioned abortion is not available, unsafe abortions account for 13 per cent of pregnancy related deaths.

While an extreme example, allowing legislation for abortion to be possible will simply set a dangerous precedent.

Instead, discussion of how to prevent sex-selective abortion should be focused in directions which, instead of altering our own laws to prevent them, look to the circumstances which have allowed it to become an issue.

The areas of the world in which it is has been reported to occur include China, India (where sex-selective abortion has been illegal for 18 years, with debatable effectiveness), the Caucusus and South America, among others, all areas which suffer widespread poverty. In many of these areas, women do not have the same opportunities as men do and cannot always expect to earn the same amount of money as a man. To parents who are expecting to raise a child in poverty, that could be perceived as a burden. A male child will be more likely to be financially stable and could, in the future, be able to support the parents. Female children can also carry with them cultural requirements, such as a dowry, which parents living in poverty may seek to avoid.

In order for sex-selective abortion to be dealt with worldwide, those are the issues which need to be addressed. Educating females, employing females, and extending the same quality of life to all females would, in the long run, do more to end the kind of attitudes which devalue female children compared to male.

Although it is not nearly as prevalent in Canada as it is in these other regions of the world, there have been anecdotal reports in other publications such as the Globe & Mail and National Post that it has taken place in Canada, although there is no statistical evidence to corroborate this. If it is happening here, it is among a small percentage.

That there is so little evidence that it is an issue in Canada, and nothing from the Canadian government has testified to it, legislating on these grounds could simply be responding to, and by extent encouraging, prejudice. Should legislation be made based on the supposed behaviours of a minority-within-a-minority? That itself is problematic. It not only prescribes the issue to specific cultural groups, it does so at the expense of acknowledging why so many people emigrate to Canada in the first place: to have a better quality and standard of living, and the promise of success for their children which may not exist in other parts of the world.

Regardless of how prevalent of an issue it is in Canada, it is something which may continue to exist if it is unexamined and unaddressed. But introducing legislation in this way simply isn’t the way to do that.

Your anonymous comment may be printed in The Ontarion's print publication.