“Sex selection … puts feminists in the odd position of defending the right of women to decide against female babies on the basis that females aren’t as valuable or desirable as males.
In the wake of a new study that indicates that unborn girls are being targeted for abortion by certain immigrant groups in Canada, evidence has surfaced that sex selective in vitro fertilization (IVF) is being regularly advertised in Canadian news papers.
A fertility clinic in Washington state has been targeting Indo-Canadians in British Columbia with an ad encouraging them to “create the family you want: Boy or Girl.” The ad features a picture of an ethnic boy and girl attired in traditional Indian garb.
A website address in the ad directs parents interested in sex-selection to the Washington Center for Reproductive Medicine where they learn that preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is the clinic’s preferred method for “selecting an embryo of known gender facilitating family balancing”.
Sabrina Atwal, project director for the Indo-Canadian Women’s Association in Edmonton said she was “appalled” by the ad and that it was indicative of the devaluation faced by women and girls in Indo-Canadian communities.
“Girls are fighting for their lives before they’re even born,” she said.
According to the clinic’s explanation of the sex selection process, after the artificial joining of numerous sperms and eggs, the clinic performs biopsies on the newly created human beings to identify the ones the bear XX (female) or XY (male) chromosomes. With the PGD method, the clinic “virtually guarantee[s] successful gender selection.”
In IVF embryos that are not implanted are typically destroyed or frozen for later use, or scientific research.
In an op-ed that appeared yesterday in the National Post, Kelly McParland chided Canadians who might be appalled by current practices such as sex selection in what he called the country’s “free-for-all baby market”.
With no law on abortion in the country, McParland pointed out that the sex selection clinic would be “perfectly justified” in going even further.
“Why not be specific, with a two-for-one special on male twins? Crude? You bet. Barbaric? Some would say that, but certainly not feminists, who support sex selection as another legitimate choice for women to make, and which is none of our business.”
McParland pointed out the colossal logical conundrum faced by pro-abortion feminists who have built an empire on the ideology of ‘abortion on demand for any reason’ and who are now even willing to sacrifice their own sisters’ blood by defending sex selection for the sake of holding fast to their ideology.
“Sex selection … puts feminists in the odd position of defending the right of women to decide against female babies on the basis that females aren’t as valuable or desirable as males.”
“How much more discriminatory can you get than advocating the inherent value of one sex over the other?”
“Don’t ask me, ask the feminists. It’s their position, not mine,” concludes McParland.