New Zealand the latest to encounter sex-selection abortions
by intern Andy M.
Pro-life groups throughout New Zealand are voicing concern at the news that the American-designed IntelliGender test kit will be made available as soon as June 22. The kit can apparently be used from 8 weeks after conception and is already selling well in Australia, just a month after its introduction to the market there. It is sold for ~$125 without a prescription.
Of course, the question is – what’s the rush? While some couples prefer to keep the gender of their child as a surprise, others like to find out early on. Some are curious – others simply want to start decorating baby’s room in the appropriate colors and purchasing either pink or blue baby clothes.
But how many are likely to fork out $125 for 1 of these innocent reasons when they could have simply waited until the baby was 18 weeks and received a free government-funded ultrasound, as is offered in NZ?…
It was a month ago that the Washington Times reported Sweden’s horrific decision to legalize sex-selection abortions.
NZ’s abortion laws currently specify that abortions may only be performed if the mother’s mental or physical health is in severe danger. But despite the clarity of the law, it came as no surprise when a High Court judge recently ruled, “there is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions” committed in NZ. The fact is that, just like the US, NZ has abortion on demand. NZ already has sex-selection abortions. They may be illegal, but the certifying consultants, the Abortion Supervisory Committee and NZ’s Parliament are turning a blind eye.
The real concern with the introduction of this product is that it could increase the overall number of abortions performed in NZ. A mother who is 8 weeks pregnant may not have yet bonded with her unborn child. The level of commitment she feels is likely to be considerably less than it will be when the child is at 18 weeks.
The majority of women appear to accept that the later a pregnancy is, the more undesirable it is to have an abortion. The IntelliGender offers to remove this cause for hesitation by allowing a woman to learn the sex of her child much earlier in the pregnancy (and also to be disappointed if it wasn’t what she was hoping for, as evidenced by some of the testimonials on their website).
Voice for Life spokesperson Bernard Moran got to the heart of the matter when he stated that certain ethnic minorities might be more prone to use the test to determine whether or not the pregnancy should be allowed to go ahead. On a pragmatic level, you just need to look at the situation in China if you are unsure about the impact of sex-selection abortions on a country. God has put a system in place that keeps gender number disparity to a minimum, but when we try and do it our way, we’re bound to screw it up.
The makers of IntelliGender appear to be intentionally refraining from touching on the darker ramifications of the use of their product. Instead they market the kit as “a fun, affordable and safe way to determine pink or blue!”
While there is nothing wrong with the product in and of itself, the potential for misuse outweighs the benefit. NZ could be worse off for allowing the IntelliGender kit to go on sale.
[Photo attribution: IntelliGender.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Won’t sex selective abortion be a form of sexual discrimination??
No, really?
“God has put a system in place that keeps gender number disparity to a minimum, but when we try and do it our way, we’re bound to screw it up.”
Therein lies the heart of the entire problem. God has put many a “system” in place, but too many people want to do things their own way, and more often than not screw everything up in the process. It is a grievous and terrible thing when everyone does what is right in their own eyes!! God have mercy!
P.S. If feminists were to be true to their supposed “pro-woman” positions, they’d be boycotting this and China’s one-child-policy. The truth is, the ONLY pro-woman position is pro-life. Abortion hurts women, born & pre-born!
RSD, absolutely correct. Sex-selective abortions have got to be the ultimate form of sexual-discrimination. To mercilessly kill an unborn child – based on her sex, and who doesn’t even have a say in the matter is just unthinkable.
I would rather deal with consequences of too much liberty than not enough of it. Banning a product because of fear of what some might use it for is what the anti-Second Amendment forces are all about. Outlawing the sale of this product not only goes against American ideals such as the free market and freedom of thought, it further creates a nanny state.
P.S. If feminists were to be true to their supposed “pro-woman” positions, they’d be boycotting this and China’s one-child-policy. The truth is, the ONLY pro-woman position is pro-life. Abortion hurts women, born & pre-born!
Posted by: EEEEMommy at June 15, 2009 3:33 PM
I agree with you 100%!
O’Reilly said there are four abortionists in the US who do late-term abortions. Is this correct or are there more? Anyone?
Posted by: Janet at June 15, 2009 10:48 PM—————————————————————- Janet, I can’t get on the above page. Martin Haskell and Martin Ruddock, both from my state unfortunatly, do late terms. Haskell invented it from what I understand.
And then add in Carhart and Hern and you’ve got 4
I think given the great potential for misuse this product should be banned.
It serves no real purpose other than to provide yet another “reason” to abort.
yet again, we see abortion being used against women.
So much for reproductive rights.
Libertarian, I see what you are saying, and on the face of it your comment appears to make sense. I am a libertarian myself, and hesitated as I wrote that final statement, calling for the kit to be banned in New Zealand. However I have blogged on this, and believe that in our current situation here in New Zealand, a ban on this product would be the best move. It would be the option best in agreement with libertarian principles.