Back when my wife was pregnant with our third child (some 10 years ago), a nurse asked us if we wanted to know the sex of the child. Our decision was the same for all three – we would wait and be surprised. During the ultrasound, the nurse shared that many women asked to know their child’s sex for purposes of a sex-selective abortion. It was clearly distasteful to her, but there was nothing to prevent this.

Fast forward a full decade and the trend of sex-selective abortion has become commonplace, primarily among emigrants from China and India. Even news organizations have started to bring this harsh reality to light. The reasons are obvious in that both countries have adopted a one-child policy and have cultures where male children are considered assets to the family while females are deemed of lesser value and are financially burdensome.

So why had this trend become so in vogue? Quite simply, Canada is the perfect niche market for anyone wishing to dispose of an unwanted child. We have created the ideal climate since there are no laws protecting the unborn. This means that no woman (or controlling partner) is obliged to even expend energy in fabricating a compelling rationale to abort. With no restrictions, the timeline and reasons are irrelevant. The only remaining challenge is that the child still needs to
be, at least partly, still in the birth canal – at least for now. Thankfully, with doctors and nurses obliged to share the child’s sex, there’s no need to wait until the last minute. The icing on the cake is that abortions are fully funded by the taxpayer.

That’s right! If you’ve wondered why you need to wait 2 years for an urgent surgical procedure, take heart (no pun intended) in knowing that many industrious abortion doctors are struggling to keep ahead of the demand for fewer crumb crunchers to impede busy adults’ lifestyles.

Listening to a talk show last week, a “bioethicist” from some pre-eminent institution of higher learning shared his insights on this trend du jour. He made a compelling case (at least to those already brainwashed by prestigious pontificating
professors of his ilk) that the beginning of life was really a complicated philosophical issue rather than a scientific certainty. I guess he was adopting the “above my pay grade” argument so eloquently adopted by then presidential
hopeful Obama. Considering how affluent these guys are, how can we mere plebes hope plunder the depths of such nuance? I do find it interesting that those who deem the answer beyond their comprehension consistently come down on the side of aborting to the last possible moment. In fact, given his contempt for disabled children, he would probably be of the same mind as Peter Singer (Princeton Bioethics Chair) who believes “disabled” children should be able to be eliminated in the end of the 10^th month.

One caller justly accused the bioethicist of attempting to suck and blow at the same time. The bioethicist tried to make the case that the non-person in the womb deserved no rights, but perhaps some sex-based protections might be called for. My impression is that he believed women should largely determine whether or not to abort based on the counselling from the abortion worker who derives her paycheque based on the number of abortions performed. A little strong-arming however might be necessary to compel unenlightened parents not to keep their disabled child or guide couples looking to clear the decks for a male child to sleep on it.

The irony is that this brave new world order where feticide is largely a consequence of feminists and their liberal allies. Abortion is seen as sacrosanct and the centrepiece of modern feminism. In fact, feminists who adopted the full slate
of feminist causes excepting abortion were excluded from N.O.W. – or as Rush whimsically refers to them, the N.A.G.s (National Association of Gals) for their heresy. Thus “Feminists for Life” was formed for women who lacked the
stomach for the abortion agenda.

It is also the “culturally inclusive” leftists who maintain that no other culture is morally superior to any other (unless the culprit is their own). No longer are doors being opened wide for women (now a sexual harassment crime), but we swing
open our national doors for patriarchal cultures that devalue women through forced abortion, sterilization and genital mutilation.

Feminists have tried to make men irrelevant by pursuing elevated rights for their own sex and rely on government as their sugar daddy. Other cultures like China and India have made women irrelevant both as income earners and mothers. It turns out that these two seemingly disparate sides have actually been working in concert based on the “fruits of their labour.”

The study (see note below) was conducted in Armenia by a team under the direction of Lilit Khachatryan, of the Department of Public Health, American University of Armenia, that also included researchers from Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and the University of Pennsylvania.

Among its key findings:

Among the women studied, one induced abortion increased the risk of developing breast cancer by 2.86 times.

Giving birth reduced the risk of breast cancer among these women by 64% (this is consistent with statements from the Canadian Cancer Society).

Delaying a first full-term pregnancy after age 20 also increased the breast cancer risk.

Among the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer’s comments

The report’s authors claimed that “Most evidence (of an abortion-breast cancer link)…points to no effect.” Professor Joel Brind of Baruch College, City University of New York, said that claim is “plainly false.”

To support the claim of “no effect,” the researchers cited only one study, by Melbye in 1997 (see references in the ABC press release via this link), that has been severely criticized; the Melbye study reported a statistically significant 89% increased risk for those having abortions after 18 weeks gestation.

A red herring to prop up abortion

The Khachatryan team stated that their finding of an increased risk was due to “recall bias.” This is based on the assumption that more women with breast cancer report their past abortions than do healthy women. Dr. Brind said, “The recall bias argument has been repeatedly disproved in the literature.” ABC cites a study from the U.S. National Cancer Institute whose authors “demonstrated that they know recall bias is a red herring used to prop up abortion.”

The Khachatryan study

The study, titled Influence of diabetes mellitus type 2 and prolonged estrogen exposure on risk of breast cancer among women in Armenia, by Khachatryan L, Scharpf R, Kagan S., was conducted because diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM2) and breast cancer (BrCa) are prevalent in Armenia. Researchers performed a case control study of 302 women. In addition to its findings on breast cancer, it concluded that diabetes mellitus type 2 increased adjusted odds of breast cancer by 5.53. They stated that they adjusted findings for age and body mass index (BMI), which confounded associations between DM2 and BrCa, and recommended that: “We suggest our findings imply the need for further investigation in Armenian and in other populations with similar characteristics.”

Read more . . .

The most detailed images of embryos during the eight weeks of growth have been produced by The Endowment for Human Development using digitized images of embryos. A graphic for development at 25 days shows primary development of heart tissue, and 33 days shows development of the stomach, liver, aorta, atria and ventricles of the heart. A picture of the heart at eight weeks is shown to the right. 

To see them, click on: http://www.ehd.org/virtual-human-embryo/stage.php?stage=1

For more, click here.

For more on the images and the man who made them, click here.

To see a review, click here.

To see the movie website, click here.

To see the movie, go to Silver City in Burlington or Stoney Creek where it opened September 30.