Imagine you are one half of a young couple expecting your first child in a fast-growing, poor country. You are part of the new middle class; your income is rising; you want a small family. But traditional mores hold sway around you, most important in the preference for sons over daughters. Perhaps hard physical labour is still needed for the family to make its living. Perhaps only sons may inherit land. Perhaps a daughter is deemed to join another family on marriage and you want someone to care for you when you are old. Perhaps she needs a dowry.
Now imagine that you have had an ultrasound scan; it costs $12, but you can afford that. The scan says the unborn child is a girl. You yourself would prefer a boy; the rest of your family clamours for one. You would never dream of killing a baby daughter, as they do out in the villages. But an abortion seems different. What do you do?
For millions of couples, the answer is: abort the daughter, try for a son. In China and northern India more than 120 boys are being born for every 100 girls. Nature dictates that slightly more males are born than females to offset boys’ greater susceptibility to infant disease. But nothing on this scale.
For those who oppose abortion, this is mass murder. For those such as this newspaper, who think abortion should be “safe, legal and rare” (to use Bill Clinton’s phrase), a lot depends on the circumstances, but the cumulative consequence for societies of such individual actions is catastrophic….
South Korea, the article notes, is the exception in that the skewed statistics have come right again. Why? I would be interested to know if the substantial growth of Christianity in that country has something to do with it.
unintended consequences for feminists supporting abortion – wholeslaughter of girls. (The other consequence is the feminization of poverty.) Are there any prolife feminists?
This is where proponents of abortion rights do not realise the inconsistency of their position. I can remember, for example, arguing to Labour Party members (a) that the party had a strong stance in favour of the disabled; (b) the disabled were widely aborted and therefore (c) we ought to tighten the limits and controls on abortion. The result was uproar – but no one could find a rebuttal. Similarly, although I do not believe that gay identity is created genetically, imagine if such a cause were identified. The gay lobby would have to ask whether to lobby against abortion. Similarly, feminists should think and think very carefully about the stance most of them take in support of abortion. This article Kendall has posted shows why.
Robroy,
[url=http://www.feministsforlife.org/]Feminists for Life[/url] and the [url=http://www.sba-list.org/site/c.ddJBKJNsFqG/b.4009925/k.BE63/Home.htm]Susan B Anthony List[/url] are a couple of examples of pro-life “feminist” organizations. These organizations promote the dignity and equality of women without sacrificing that which is uniquely feminine. They are unwaveringly pro-life.
Perhaps being pro-choice is no solution to ending patriarchy. Abortion rights are no substitute for equality in civic and political life.
Abortion can be regarded a major contributor to our current economic crisis.
Hurray Margaret Sanger. Her racist and elitest culture of death has swung back in an unexpectedly sexist way. Oh, the irony!