Gender, Culture and Ethics: Confronting the Complexities of Sex-Selective Abortion in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the ethical and cultural implications of sex-selective abortion, with a focus on the Indo-Canadian community. Drawing from a 2016 Canadian Medical Association Journal study and expert opinions, including a CBC radio discussion and Dr. Jen Gunter's commentary, it highlights the conflict between reproductive rights and entrenched gender biases. The piece critiques the challenges in legislating against sex-selective abortion, emphasizing the infringement on reproductive rights and privacy, and the need to address deeper societal and cultural factors behind sex selection. The analysis includes cultural perspectives, revealing how societal norms and familial pressures in the Indo-Canadian community impact reproductive decisions, often leading to coercion and loss of choice. The feminist viewpoint links sex-selective abortion to broader issues of gender inequality and misogyny. Conclusively, the article argues for a holistic approach to addressing sex-selective abortion, combining legal, educational, and cultural changes. This approach aims to cultivate a society that values gender equality and respects women’s autonomy, ensuring their decisions are free from coercion and societal prejudice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.045 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".