China’s one child policy and abortion of females
The prevalence of sonograms in recent years has allowed parents to learn the gender of their fetus about 20 weeks into pregnancy, Hesketh said, leading to a rise in abortions based on sex. Abortion is legal and widely available.
China bans tests to determine the fetus’ gender for non-medical reasons but they are still commonly done, mainly by underground private clinics in the countryside.
Of course, the abortion “rights” activists in the USA cannot have a thing to say about people aborting girls because they want boys. They have declared that abortion should be available for any reason, at any time in the pregnancy. They have declared that the “mother’s” wishes trump all other considerations.
Can they now decry abortions for sex-selection? China isn’t the only place where gendercide against females has been happening. Others include India, Vietnam and the Phillipines.
Pro-Life Philippines – Sounds of Feminist Silence
…with gendercide, the feminists are truly caught in a dilemma which shows up their avoidance of this issue which threatens the survival of women. If they ignore the sex selection deaths of their sisters, then they have to take on board their support for the killing of their own gender – whose killing in any circumstance other than abortion they would widely protest. Yet, if they protest the killing of the unborn baby girls, they lose their case for a “woman’s right to choose” abortion for any reason. But the stark reality facing them is that the “woman’s right to choose” could potentially result in the death of most girls, in fact the deaths of feminists themselves. If feminists support a ban on sex selection abortion then they have already been ensnared onto the pro life side and it seems easier to accept discrimination against unborn girls that to accept that. The continuing feminists’ sounds of silence testify to a moral failure to even face the issue, much less comment on it. If women’s rights groups cannot express a wish for their own sisterhood to survive, then what is the point of their existence?
And the silence from pro-abortion groups is deafening
Sex-selection abortion has left mainstream abortion and feminists groups in a bind. The National Organization of Women and National Abortion Rights Action League have been quiet on the subject. Their Web sites yield no substantive discussion of the practice, which has resulted in millions of missing girls. Perhaps these organizations do not want to face the facts regarding abortion.
Pro-abortion groups are fond of saying that abortion is a woman’s choice. It is her electing to choose what to do with her body. How much of a choice is it really, when the women are under immense societal pressure to have a boy? How much of a choice is it for the millions of missing girls?
The popular feminist blog, Feministing.com, dealt with the issue of sex-selection abortion a month ago. Samhita Mukhopadhyay writes that the “Fertility Institutes is benefiting from sexism and hatred against the birth of baby girls in India and the Indian diaspora communities.” Ms. Mukhopadhyay does not appear to recognize the irony in her statement.
There is no one on the pro-life side who would disagree with her, yet groups such as NARAL and Planned Parenthood have yet to take up the cause.
For a very simple reason: to argue that there is anything wrong with sex-selection abortion is to acknowledge the intrinsic worth of the unborn child. The pro-aborts can’t do that, since it undercuts their entire position.