By Bethany Kerr:
From News Weekly, Austrailia, Mar. 31, 2007:
“Every year in March, the United Nations has a two-week Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) session on women’s issues. The session usually concludes with an interminable debate about “reproductive rights”, and this year’s (the 51st) was no exception.
Radical feminists subscribe to an overriding verity: abortion on demand is fundamental to “women’s rights”. However, feminists have been mugged by an unpleasant reality: the overwhelming number of abortions in the world are of female foetuses, victims of sex-selection abortions. So non-government organisation (NGO) feminists at the UN have come up with a new most estimable slogan: killing a “girl child” in the womb is “the most extreme form of violence against women”.
Their remaining problem is how to reconcile the contradictory positions of calling for unrestricted abortion while deploring the abortion of female foetuses…
How exactly do you expain to women that abortion is not morally wrong, and that they and they alone should make their own decisions concerning aborting, while simultaneously expressing to them that you feel that abortion for sex- selection is “violence” and should be stopped?
At CSW 51, the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) supported a resolution banning sex-selection abortions.
Women aren’t capable of “making their own bodily decisions” now? There needs to be a ban to “force” not to abort female children?
And what about male children? Why aren’t they important?
Read this excerpt from JME online, concerning feminists and sex selection abortion:
Whatever the specific reasons are for abortion, most feminists believe that the women concerned are in the best position to judge whether abortion is the appropriate response to pregnancy. Because usually only the woman choosing abortion is properly situated to weigh all the relevant factors, most feminists resist attempts to offer general, abstract rules for determining when abortion is morally justified . . . . Despite the diversity of opinion found among feminists on most other matters, most feminists agree that women must gain full control over their own reproductive lives if they are to free themselves from male dominance.7
Sex selected abortion, however, is seen as an instrument and consequence of male dominance that feminists are committed to oppose. It has been observed that “[m]any feminists view any efforts to plan the sex of future children as epitomising sexism”.8 Writing about abortion in 1986, a prominent prochoice advocate stated: “we believe abortion-for-gender choice is an unqualified moral wrong“.9 Opposition to means of sex selection that are made possible by PGD and sperm sorting avoids the dilemma posed by sex selected abortion, and affords opponents the support of conservative antiabortion agencies, as well as of others committed to the elimination of the pro-male sexism that sex selection is seen to represent.
I have to chuckle a little at the obvious hypocrisy of these people.
How is this “violence”, or “morally wrong” , when compared to abortions that are performed “because I don’t want another baby”, which is supposedly an acceptable excuse? Explain the difference. Someone.
Hasn’t the pro-life crowd been shouting this truth, that abortion is violence, from the rooftops for decades now? Why is it that only when it comes to gender selection the pro-abortion feminists cry out “violence!”?
And would they cry out at all, I wonder…if gender sex-selection was more likely to target boys?