Paradox
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?
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
It’s compartmentalized thinking.
Abortion because the mother doesn’t want the baby= moral good!
Abortion because *society* tells the mother to abort= Moral Bad!
In a way I understand where they’re coming from if I approach the issue from their lens. The problem is, such thinking shows clearly how little thought these “pro-choicers” actually give to the concept of Abortion.
Even more disturbing is the way “pro-choicers” are able to discredit a persons viable “choice” to abort her female children. It’s quite obvious that “choice” only extends to “politically correct choices”.
I agree it is hypocritical. While I can understand that they don’t want society to control women’s bodies, only women, the two of them are so intertwined. Our entire thought process is in regards to our own culture. But really, abortion is abortion regardless.
Let me get this straight.
Now the Pro-Choice crowd is going to be telling everyone what type of abortion is morally wrong and what type is morally right! Whatever happened to bodily autonomy? Doesn’t a woman have a right to unconditionally choose?
oh – but since one group of people say that a countries culture is wrong then it is okay to call this sexism. I wonder what would happen if these countries came over here and started to dictate to us what is right and wrong.
Valerie, ever since the end of WW2 the U.S has been trying to tell other countries whats right and wrong. Kinda ridiculous I think.
the overwhelming number of abortions in the world are of female foetuses, victims of sex-selection abortions.
I’d like proof of this, please.
Less, the WHO released a report last year detailing the 100 million “missing” women. I believe you can find the pdf. article by searching the WHO archives.
Just doing preliminary reserach, I’ve found that
– There are some indiciations that the large gender gap is due to a high Hep. B rate, and that the birth ratio of males to females is simply swayed in favor of the males.
Link
– another culprit could be the sex trade, affecting born women.
Link
I can’t seem to find the WHO report, but it seems as though factors other than abortion play a role. Once again, life isn’t as black and white as you guys paint it.
Darnit, my links didn’t work.
http://www.slate.com/id/2119402/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6430811.stm
I wasn’t claiming that the 100 million missing women were missing only from abortion. (Actually, I was wrong. The figure is 200 million) That’s just the subject of the article that discusses sex selective abortion.
The link to the WHO is here
http://www.dcaf.ch%2Fwomen%2Fpb_women_ex_sum.pdf
Of the 200 million “missing” women 60 million are missing due to sex selective abortion.
”
Amartya Sen, the 1998 Nobel Laureate for
Economics, estimates that more than 60
million women are demographically
I can’t seem to find the WHO report, but it seems as though factors other than abortion play a role. Once again, life isn’t as black and white as you guys paint it.
From what I posted, Less, it looks like the pro-abortion feminists were the one seeking this specific ban against sex selection abortions, not us. Why are you getting on our case about it?
They’re trying to impose their morals on women!
Less, as a woman who believes that women should have the right to full bodily autonomy, shouldn’t your anger be directed towards the pro-abortion feminists who are trying to place this ban, rather than shooting the messenger?
Very good information, Lauren. Thank you!
No problem.
Bethany,
You can’t just profess your ignorance and inability to grasp the nuances… you must employ lies and hyperbole to make an asenine moral/ethical dilema that’s supposedly thought provoking. You have a long ways to go before being another Jill that so entertains us pro-choicers.
Cameron –
When did Bethany ‘profess’ her ignorance?
Dan –
You are aware the The United States is NOT the United Nations? right? Also, from your comment, are you saying that we shouldn’t tell other countries that sex selection abortion is wrong? or did you just need to get that off of your chest? (I can understand the latter.)
Bethany, I get on anyone’s case who doesn’t cite their sources. I’m “shooting the messanger” because the messanger can’t seem to show empirical proof of her claims: if you can’t cite sources for a claim when you’re debating, don’t make the claim. If you’re going to use emotionally charged words and claims for the sake of using them, be prepared to be called out.
Lauren, thank you for the information.
Personally, I feel that the UN shouldn’t be going around policing other countries. This ban isn’t going to help anything: the women will simply kill the female children after birth, or get abortions illegally, or claim another reason for an abortion. It seems to me that the UN is simply waving the banner of “SEE SEE WE’RE DOING SOMETHING!” to passify people.
We’d be much better served by working on the attitudes that perpetuate feminicide: the patriarchal system of male-only inheritance, or the idea of women as second class citizens, or a thousand other symptoms of the misogynic ideaologies of these countries.
Bethany, I get on anyone’s case who doesn’t cite their sources. I’m “shooting the messanger” because the messanger can’t seem to show empirical proof of her claims: if you can’t cite sources for a claim when you’re debating, don’t make the claim. If you’re going to use emotionally charged words and claims for the sake of using them, be prepared to be called out
Less, can you not see the links? I have links included with both of the articles that I cited above…click the links to read the rest of the articles. Unless you just didn’t realize that, I don’t see how you can claim I’m not citing my sources.
Click the words that are bolded and that underline when you mouse over them. They are the links to my sources.
Bethany, the first source you cited is an editorial. I write editorials for a living at this point. The one you cited was poorly written, using emotionally charged language (a no-no in most forms of legitmate journalism) and uncited claims to build its “argument.” Furthermore, it attacked without offering a compromise: equally representing both sides and offering a compromise is one of the keystones of writing any sort of solid editorial. I’m not pro-life, but even I could write a better pro-life editorial than this guy.
I’m sorry, but editorials simply do not count as a “source” unless you are discussing someone else’s opinion, just like the Bible isn’t a source unless you’re discussing religion.
I can’t say anything about your second source, as I am loathe to register for such sites. Your bolding, however, missed this key point: Sex selected abortion, however, is seen as an instrument and consequence of male dominance that feminists are committed to oppose. This is why most pro-choice activists see sex based abortion as wrong: not because it is abortion, but because it is an instrument of the radical patriarchy of the societies that espouse it.
Less,
I can’t say anything about your second source, as I am loathe to register for such sites. Your bolding, however, missed this key point: Sex selected abortion, however, is seen as an instrument and consequence of male dominance that feminists are committed to oppose. This is why most pro-choice activists see sex based abortion as wrong: not because it is abortion, but because it is an instrument of the radical patriarchy of the societies that espouse it.
We do understand this…
That’s why we are asking this question? Is abortion right or is it wrong? It can’t be right sometimes, but then when it gets in your face about another issue you care about (women’s equality) you cry foul. If a woman has the right to choose, then why do you or anyone else get to say “except when…”?
I mean why should a woman be forced to carry a female fetus to term when she doesn’t want it?
Seems unfair. It’s her body. Kill all the baby girls. What difference does it make? As long as the woman retains her “Personal Autonomy!!!”
http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/83/12/954.pdf
Less,
I think this is the link Valerie was talking about.
mk
MK, I’m more worried about the radical patriarchy in these countries than the abortions, to be honest. Knock off the idea that women are second class, and I’d bet that they’d stop.
As to those pro-choicers who do feel its horrible, well. Just think of it as not following all the rules in Leviticus, MK. Just because you wear cotton/poly blend doesn’t make you less of a Christian: just because these people are protesting against sex based abortions doesn’t make them less pro-choice.
Less,
ust because these people are protesting against sex based abortions doesn’t make them less pro-choice.
It’s not that we are questioning their “pro-choiceness”.
We are questioning the reasoning for choice not meshing with sex selection.
Either it is the womans’ choice or it isn’t. Otherwise, if you stop sex selection abortions you are doing exactly what you are accusing us of doing. Trying to put your beliefs/morality on another group of human beings.
you think it is wrong to abort a baby because it is female and you think laws should be put in place to stop it.
We think all abortion is wrong and we want laws to put in place to stop it.
You say that we can’t tell you what to do. It’s your body, your choice.
We say, then how can you tell someone else what to do by stopping sex selection. To these people it is a perfectly valid reason.
To me it’s a more valid reason than wanting to finish school, or drive a better car.
It just seems hypocritical to me.
(By the way, when I say “YOU” I don’t mean “YOU” specifically, but collectively, as in the whole pro choice movement.)
Less,
MK, I’m more worried about the radical patriarchy in these countries than the abortions, to be honest. Knock off the idea that women are second class, and I’d bet that they’d stop.
I worry about this too, although not more than I worry about abortion, period.
But sex selection is a horrible thing. It’s horrible that it happens and it’s horrible that the circumstances that cause exist!
On this we can agree 100%.
oh oh…is that a bad thing? (lol)
mk
“Why is it that only when it comes to gender selection the pro-abortion feminists cry out “violence!”?”
Translation: i’m ignorant when it comes to the nuances of feminism and abortion.
Alternative hypothesis: lame rhetorical question.
Thank you, Cameron. If you dislike it that much, I must have done something worthwhile.
HA-HA Cameron!!
Bethany,
Thank you for blogging about such an important topic. Sex-selection abortions are so sad and I think it’s great that you are raising awareness about this issue.
I don’t think opposing sex-selective abortions is contradictory to being pro-choice. I view sex-selective abortions as violence against ‘women’. I take women in the collective sense, not the individual sense. I don’t think it is an attack on the fetus, but rather an attack on our gender.
As a pro-choicer I don’t think that abortion should be made illegal when it is being done for sex-selective purposes for a few reasons (aside from issues of bodily autonomy). First of all, women would then resort to illegal, unsafe abortions. Secondly, how would you know someone was aborting on the basis of gender? A law would be useless because a woman could simply make up a reason that did not include the fetus’ gender.
A better solution might be a ban on having the gender determined before birth (I once read an article about a country that did this/was considering doing this to help with the issue of sex-selective abortions). I think this is an excellent solution, because it does not infringe on a woman’s right to bodily autonomy and it would help to prevent sex-selective abortions.
I also think sex-selective abortions are really just the tip of the iceberg and that this is an indication of much larger issues. I think we need to attack the root of the problem if we want to prevent sex-selective abortions.
And as a feminist, I can assure you that I would be equally saddened by hearing about sex-selective abortions of male fetuses because feminism is about equality :)
Thank you for your kindly put point of view, Th. I agree with a lot of what you said…. :-) and I appreciate the way in which you stated it.
I don’t think it is an attack on the fetus, but rather an attack on our gender.
I understand what you’re saying, but the thing that makes this contradictory (not that you agree with them, because you made your position clear above, but just to clarify) is that we’re talking about what pro-choice advocates claim are “potential” human beings. Sperm is a potential human. Pro-choice advocates have been known to say many times that fetuses are human only in the sense that hair, skin, and nails are “human”. Not “human beings”, because pro-choice advocates agree that to say that a fetus is a human being is to consider them a “person”, and they aren’t “persons” until they reach viability, right?
So what confuses me in this issue is: Why does it matter if a woman aborts a non-viable fetus, regardless of whether it’s a girl or a boy? If your position is that a fetus is only potentially human, and not a ‘true’ human, then there should be no crime, and certainly no ‘violence’, whether they’re aborting more females, or more males.
Would a pro-choice woman lament all of the sperm which are thrown away in condoms every year? Of course not. So what makes this different? Unless the fetus is a person, I do not believe there could possibly be a difference from a true pro-choice standpoint.
I believe it is because pro-choice feminists like this particular group of feminists “knows” deep down what they’re supporting, and when they realize that their plan for “equality” has actually backfired on them, and is actually “opressing” them, they start backing off and all of a sudden, making moral judgements about abortion is the right thing to do!
What I want to know, is, from a pro-choice standpoint: what makes aborting ANY child, of ANY sex wrong, if it’s not even “persons” we’re talking about, but “potential persons”.
If a woman by aborting is not actually killing anyone, but is simply “ending” a pregnancy, then how is this possibly violence?
Do you see my point?
I do not see how on one hand, abortion can be a woman’s choice, and not murder by ANY means, but as soon as they realize girls are more likely to be aborted than boys, they are wanting to protect the little girls in the womb. Why are they protecting them if they’re not even persons?
Does anyone see where I’m coming from at all? Any pro-choicers out there who actually understand what I’m saying?
“Does anyone see where I’m coming from at all? Any pro-choicers out there who actually understand what I’m saying?”
I completely understand what you are saying, but I think that most of the pro-choice feminist activists who were opposing sex-selective abortions likely feel the same as I do. I think they too feel that it is an attack on women in the collective sense.
“I believe it is because pro-choice feminists like this particular group of feminists “knows” deep down what they’re supporting, and when they realize that their plan for “equality” has actually backfired on them, and is actually “opressing” them, they start backing off and all of a sudden, making moral judgements about abortion is the right thing to do! ”
What I see as oppressive about this is that women are likely being coerced into these abortions through pressures of society or their husbands. I don’t like the idea of women ever being pressured into abortion and I believe women who have abortions because they were pressured into doing so are being oppressed. So I do acknowledge that there are instances where abortion can be oppressive but overall, I think women would be much more opressed without the option.
I think this topic is very interesting because I think that I feel the same way about sex-selective abortion as you do about abortion in general. However, as tragic as I find sex-selective abortion, I don’t think restrictive laws are the solution (just like I don’t think that is the solution to reducing abortion).
Thinking about abortion as a means of oppressing women has made me think about how as a pro-choicer I truly do want to see the number of abortions decline. I think that women only have a true choice when each option is realistic. For example, for some women they may not believe it is realistic to have a child while they are in school, as a pro-choicer, I want this option open to them, so to provide them with a true choice, I would like to see things such as greater access to daycare for young mothers in school etc… and ultimately I would like for women to never have to make a life-choice like abortion because of financial reasons or stigmas within society towards unwed mothers etc., because then women would have true choice and would not be coerced by their finances/society. I think if this were the case then the number of abortions would significantly decrease which would make everyone happy :) (I know that was a bit of a tangent but I was just thinking… Sorry for the rambling)
Mk: Either it is the womans’ choice or it isn’t. Seems to me that you are questioning their
Less,
I only meant that having a female child in a country like India could actually cause serious consequences for the woman…like her husband might kill her.
There is NO good reason for an abortion. But at least in oppressed countries you can see where they are coming from. It seems less trivial than having 6 or 7 abortions because you forgot to take your pill. Again.
As to it being a female potential person…I’ll have to add that to my list of crazy names you guys have for babies.
not human
human/not a person
person but it doesn’t matter
parasite
lunch
and now
female potential person.
To me, it’s just a baby, waitin’ it’s turn to visit the world. to take a spin on the magic carpet ride. To eat a bagel. To have a first kiss. To catch a firefly.
I see it’s future. You see its chromosomes.
mk
Wow – I have to say that my stomach is churning by some of the responses here.
Let me get this straight. (didn’t I say that before?) Abortion based on sex is bad. Abortion based on genetic fetal intelligence is good.
Why is a female potential person more important that a female down syndrom potential person? Talk about prejudice and stigma. No one in America wants a child with a handicap/disablity because of status just as in India no one wants a female because of status.
Please explain the difference to me because I just don’t get it.
Oh, so the fact that having a baby might screw up the girl
Less,
Again, people having 6 or 7 abortions isn
So you
Bethany,
I feel like you want so desperately to find hypocrisy and inconsistency within our posts that you are knowingly stretching the truth to make it appear.
“but at the same time, we would ideally like to not see women having a choice in the case of sex selection, when it applies to girls.”
I clearly said that I was NOT in favour of laws restricting abortion in the case of sex selection.
Also, while there may be contradictions within the pro-choice movement about when personhood starts, or if it matters when it starts, or what point abortions should be legal up to etc… There are also inconsistencies within the pro-life movement as well. There are pro-lifers who think that exceptions should be made in one or more of the following: rape, incest, mother’s life, mother’s health, fetal abnormality etc. and there are pro-lifers who believe that none of these are acceptable. There are pro-lifers who advocate for more comprehensive sex education as a means of reducing abortions and there are pro-lifers who advocate for abstenence only sex education to do the same thing. There are pro-lifers who believe that preventing implantation is the same thing as aborting and there are pro-lifers who disagree…. Does all this point to hypocrisy/inconsistency within the movement itself? Not necessarily, because different people hold different views and I wouldn’t expect the entire group the share every single belief.
“But of course, those fetuses are only human if they are predetermined to be girls within the womb, and the woman is only considering abortion because it is a girl…”
I don’t remember reading any comment that said this… although perhaps I just missed it.
So please don’t try to dismiss my comments by making up things I didn’t say to make me sound like a hypocrite.
Th, I was not replying to you, I was replying to Less. I know that you had said you did not agree with it.
Also, while there may be contradictions within the pro-choice movement about when personhood starts, or if it matters when it starts, or what point abortions should be legal up to etc… There are also inconsistencies within the pro-life movement as well. There are pro-lifers who think that exceptions should be made in one or more of the following: rape, incest, mother’s life, mother’s health, fetal abnormality etc. and there are pro-lifers who believe that none of these are acceptable. There are pro-lifers who advocate for more comprehensive sex education as a means of reducing abortions and there are pro-lifers who advocate for abstenence only sex education to do the same thing. There are pro-lifers who believe that preventing implantation is the same thing as aborting and there are pro-lifers who disagree…. Does all this point to hypocrisy/inconsistency within the movement itself? Not necessarily, because different people hold different views and I wouldn’t expect the entire group the share every single belief.
Just to clarify,
We’ve said it time and time again. Anyone who claims to be pro-life who says that they think women should have a “choice” in ANY situation, to abort their child, is not truthfully “pro-life”. They have crossed over to “pro-choice” side because they obviously believe that in some instances, choice to abort is okay. According to the people who claim they are pro-choice, all pro-choice means is that regardless of how you feel about abortion, you feel that a women should “have the right to choose”. Right? If a person says “I think that abortion is wrong, but in cases of rape and incest it’s ok for a women to choose to abort”, they are crossing over to pro-choice, and are not any longer pro-life…they are pro-choice, though it would hurt them to admit this.
A true pro-life individual does not believe abortion is okay for any reason whatsoever, because pro-life people consider abortion murder. That’s what the whole basis of the pro-life argument is!
Saying that abortion is not murder if a woman was raped, but it is murder if the woman just wants to abort for inconvenience, is contradictory. Either it’s murder, or it’s not. If you have said “it’s murder in some cases, but not all”, you don’t really believe it’s murder. And therefore, you are not truly pro-life.
To add on to MK’s post.I know of several women who have had multiple abortions[2 come to mind off the top of my head] One woman had 7 abortions.The other says 8 or 9.Claims she lost count.The others 3 or 4.I also do know a few that had 1 and say they would never do it again.One other woman-5 children and 6 abortions
“Valerie, I understand the difference. A child with downs syndrom usually will involve intense and lifetime care from the parents, and not everyone could do that. I know unequivicoloy that I could not. I don’t know that I would abort such a child for such a reason, but I would put it up for adoption. I understand the mindset, but there are better options. ”
Less, you understand the difference based on American culture. In India, as an example, girls are viewed the same way as you described a down’s child is. Plus, they always add how expensive girls are and that if you don’t find them a husband, your stuck with them.
Now – You know that I respect you and that I like a good debate and you always keep me on my toes. So don’t take this the wrong way. But have you ever spent any time with a Down’s child/adult? They are beautiful people who have alot to contribute to society. They all seem to love life and enjoy living it. It’s awsome to be around.
My mom specializes in special education, and yes, I have spent time with Down’s children/adults. They’re great, but I could never be a parent to one. I simply couldn’t. Heck, I don’t know if I could be a parent period, but I know I could not be a parent to a down’s child. My personality would not allow me to do so.
Bethany, I understand the difference. That doesn’t mean I find it any less reprehensable that you wouldn’t allow a women who had been raped to abort. I didn’t really have a point with the statement about sex being determined at conception. Frankly, as I said to MK, the abortions in the case of sex selection don’t worry me as much as the patriarchy in those countries does. I disagree with the UN often, and this case is no exception.
MK, did it say anything about the reasons for those abortions? I know people with genetic disorders (Tay-Sacs comes to mind) who have tried several times for a baby without the abonormality, have failed each time, and have aborted. It isn’t common, of course, but it happens. Repeat abortions happen, but the number of overal abortions continues to lower.
Hi Les,
perhaps you can act as a go-between …. over a decade ago a researcher in Chicago knew that his fetal-patient would die ()likely before her 1st birthday) of the severe genetic condition she had inherited. The researcher implanted mature adult bone-marrow cells to ‘teach’ the baby’s own cells how to grow cells properly … sort of a prototype.
It worked so well, he thought this procedure could apply to hundreds of types of genetic anomalies.
Hi Les,
perhaps you can act as a go-between …. over a decade ago a researcher in Chicago knew that his fetal-patient would die (likely before her 1st birthday) of the severe genetic condition she had inherited. The researcher implanted mature adult bone-marrow cells to ‘teach’ the baby’s own cells how to grow cells properly … sort of a prototype.
It worked so well, he thought this procedure could apply to hundreds of types of genetic anomalies.
John McDonell, I’d like proof of this please?
Hi Less,
I heard about him via a science radio show in Canada called: ‘Quirks and Kwarks’ @1995 long before I even owned a computer. So you’ll need to do some Internet digging … his base was the University of Chicago medical hospital.
you research this at your end & I’ll try it from here … then we’ll compare notes … OK?