Hospital wouldn't reveal sex of baby at 20 week scan

coolcait

nottslass wrote: »

I have read the above link several times and I fail to understand how an ESTIMATE of 100 babies per year referred to in an article published by the "christian institute" (who ever they may be) can be considered as official UK population statistics.

Do you not realise that there is accurate and official government data that monitors the UK s population ?

It is laughable that that NHS policy makers would use such sources as information on which to base their policies.

Going back to the original point of this thread,it was suggested that some hospitals refused to reveal a babies sex because there were a disproportionate number of boys to girls born in some ethnic communities you still seem unable to provide accurate official data or indeed a copy of a hospitals policy to validate these claims.

Well said.

Where are the official statistics on 'female foeticide/gendercide/call it what you will' (Lady Desai)?

I'm not entirely sure of the Christian Institute's impartiality on the issue, given their own description of themselves:


The Christian Institute exists for “the furtherance and promotion of the Christian religion in the United Kingdom” and “the advancement of education”.
The Christian Institute is a nondenominational Christian charity committed to upholding the truths of the Bible. We are supported by individuals and churches throughout the UK.
We believe that the Bible is the supreme authority for all of life and we hold to the inerrancy of Scripture. We are committed to upholding the sanctity of life from conception.

patchwork_cat

I wasn't going to post anymore as my links are not being read - the statistics are not from the Christian Institute, but from Oxford University as it states in the article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7123753.stm#table As you can see from the table the sex ration is very skewed. I have provided stats - all those disagreeing provide yours.

nottslass_2

patchwork_cat wrote: »

I wasn't going to post anymore as my links are not being read - the statistics are not from the Christian Institute, but from Oxford University as it states in the article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7123753.stm#table As you can see from the table the sex ration is very skewed. I have provided stats - all those disagreeing provide yours.

The figures that you have quoted are from a department within oxford university and not the Governments official office of statistics.

In addition to this the table that you provide a link for actually states that "The Birth of the first or second child is excluded from these figures" . The only thing this link provides is confirmation that figures can be quite easily manipulated to suit

Hardly a reliable scientific representation is it ?

patchwork_cat

Can't help laughing! Leaving it there! You are funny. Demand statistics then when presented with them say oh statistics can be manipulated!

nottslass_2

patchwork_cat wrote: »

Can't help laughing! Leaving it there! You are funny.

When you pick yourself of the floor please feel free to provide a link to the Governments official office of statistics.

Do you really believe that data which excludes 1st & 2nd born babies and only includes Babies born to women who were actually born in India is a reliable source of information ?