Proliferations 4/7/08
by JivinJ
Most Americans rightly regard sex-selective abortions as odious; in a 2006 Zogby poll, an overwhelming 86% of Americans agreed that such abortions should be illegal. But they’re not illegal – and as economists Douglas Almond and Lena Edlund indicate in the latest issue of PNAS, they are now occurring in the United States, too.
Almond and Edlund examined the ratio of boys to girls among US children born to Chinese, Korean, and Indian parents. For the first children of these Asian-American families, the sex ratio was the normal 1.05-to-1. But when the first baby is a girl, the odds of the second being a boy rose to 1.17-to-1. After two sisters, the likelihood of the third being a son leaped to 1.51-to-1. This is clear “evidence of sex selection, most likely at the prenatal stage,” the authors write.
[Photo of Hextell courtesy of CBS]
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.
Insanely enough, there are folks on this forum who support sex-selection abortions, regardless.
Whatever.
Sorry JivinJ, your post is very capable and matter-of-fact, without Jill’s flair for hyperbole, the thrill just isn’t there. This site isn’t about linking to “life” related subjects, it is about Jill making outrageous statements about them.
Carder, can you name any of these “folks” who support sex-selection abortions? None of the pro-choicers I know would condone it.
Ray, while we don’t condone it, nor can we support making it illegal. There are lots of things I believe are “wrong” but are nonetheless legal.
Ray, should sex-selection abortions be illegal, then?
A pro-choicer might argue, that it’s only a small percentage of all abortions, not enough to risk a woman’s right to choose.
Hal: There are lots of things I believe are “wrong” but are nonetheless legal.
Like what?
Ray,
Read Hal’s post.
It’s come up before. Specific names excape me, but as Hal has confirmed, it isn’t sexist enough to put a stop to it.
Gently correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the more rabid among the ranks were opposed to illegalizing sex-selection abortions: Laura, Sally, T Red, et al.
Hal: There are lots of things I believe are “wrong” but are nonetheless legal.
Like what?
Posted by: Janet at April 7, 2008 2:03 PM
Like adultry. Like drinking too much. Like smoking. Like having more than 4 kids (joking…). Like driving too slow in the fast lane. Like not calling your mother on her birthday.
If a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy, we have to trust that woman with the right, and hope she exercises it with responsibility. We can try to persuade women not to have abortions simply for gender selection. I’d join that effort.
Ray, 1:25PM
Why? What’s wrong with sex selection abortion? Babies can be aborted for any other reason one sees fit.
Hal 3:15PM
Why would you try to persaude a woman not to have a sex selection abortion?
Hal: There are lots of things I believe are “wrong” but are nonetheless legal.
Like what?
Like not calling your mother on her birthday.
Now, THAT should be illegal!
Why would you try to persaude a woman not to have a sex selection abortion?
To my understanding, accurate ultrasounds to determine the sex become possible at about 18 weeks at the earliest, getting better and better as you approach 26 weeks. For my own morality, if someone is going to abort, it should be done as early as is possible. Getting into the low twenties of weeks starts to be awfully late in a pregnancy to arbitrarily end it. Not to mention that after 18 weeks, abortion starts to get a lot more complicated, risky, and expensive. Most PP affiliates do not have the facilities to provide one after that point.
Certainly many women have legitimate reasons to obtain second and late-second trimester abortions, so I do not support a ban, but I would certainly question the judgement of someone who wanted one exclusively for sex selection reasons.
Ray, 5:56PM
Why would you question her judgment? The overwhelming majority of abortions done at any point are purely elective, even partial birth which are done in later months. You don’t support a ban on late term for any other reason, why would you have an issue with sex selection?
You see no reason to question any other late term abortion. Many of these late term abortions are done because the baby is unwanted. Is that any more acceptable than sex selection? Just what is your issue with sex selection abortion?
Mary,
>You see no reason to question any other late term abortion.
Not what I said.
>Many of these late term abortions are done because the baby is unwanted.
Many of them are done because health reasons arise, or because circumstances prevented the woman from having the procedure earlier. Translation of the latter: if you think second trimester abortions are horrific, then make first trimester ones easier to obtain.
>Just what is your issue with sex selection abortion?
I already answered this question in my previous post, but let me ‘splain it for you again: sex selection abortion means arbitrary late term abortion, which I find morally questionable, though not enough so to ban it.
Sometimes I think that one big difference between antis and pro-choicers is that antis see the world in absolutes, while pro-choicers see the world in relative values which must be weighed against each other.
>>You don’t support a ban on late term for any other reason
Actually, I wish we could all just compromise on a ban some where in the middle to late second trimester. The exact point would be set by a committee of clergy and scientists, based on when brain activity becomes measurable. The condition for the compromise would be that pro-choicers would not push for abortions after that point, and antis would not try to ban it before that point. We could all then move on and spend our time more productively, but instead we are locked into this insane grind in which neither side is willing to give up any ground on their demands.
Ray, 6:33PM
Ray, you stated in your 5:56PM post that you do not support a ban on late term abortions. Most are not done for health reasons. Most are done for convenience. You do not seem to question any other late term abortions or why they are done.
Spare me this easier first trimester abortion baloney. If a woman can go to all the trouble to find, pay for, and go through a late term abortion, she can find a way to have a first trimester one.
If sex could be determined earlier in a pregnancy, and I’m sure the day is not far off, would you have any issue with sex selection abortion so long as the fetus of the “wrong” sex was aborted good and early?
Actually its the pros who fought to keep partial birth abortion though there is absolutely no medical justification for it. Apparently they don’t share your disdain of late term abortion and are not about to agree to the compromise you suggest. You were saying something about seeing the world in absolutes?
Mary,
>Most are not done for health reasons. Most are done for convenience.
Got stats to back up those claims?
>If a woman can go to all the trouble to find, pay for, and go through a late term abortion, she can find a way to have a first trimester one.
Quite the feminist, aren’t you?
>If sex could be determined earlier in a pregnancy…
Actually, looking at the result of female infanticide in Asia, a massive surplus of males who seem unlikely to find brides, abortion for sex selection seems like a really stupid idea. But rather than attempt to ban it, I think the way to end it is to work toward undoing the cultural values that drive Asians to prefer boys to girls. I think they need a little feminism over there, and among their communities over here.
>Actually its the pros who fought to keep partial birth abortion though there is absolutely no medical justification for it. Apparently they don’t share your disdain of late term abortion and are not about to agree to the compromise you suggest. You were saying something about seeing the world in absolutes?
That paragraph is so riddled with misquotation, vagueness, factual errors, and speculation that I do not deign to validate it with a response.
Go, Mary!
Humor us, Ray. If it so fraught, de-fraught it. I don’t see the inaccuracies that you do.
And provide your stats, too, while you’re at it.
Hal 3:15PM
Why would you try to persaude a woman not to have a sex selection abortion?
Posted by: Mary at April 7, 2008 4:44 PM
Because, I believe it’s insane to prefer a boy or a girl. If you want a baby, you should accept what you get. There is no legitimate reason to want a baby of one sex instead of another. However, there are reasons not to want any baby at all. That’s just my morality. I’d try to persuade, not to legislate. I suppose others could have different opinions, and I might not be effective.
Ray,
How about Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, who as early as 1997 acknowledged that partial birth abortion “in the vast majority of cases” was performed on “healthy mothers with a healthy fetus 20 weeks or more along”.
Perhaps Ray you could name the health reasons for which PBA or other late term abortion would be necessary. As a medical professional, I can tell you there are far more humane and safe methods in the rare situation where the life of the mother or child may be at risk.
Also, health conditions that may have one time posed a threat to a pregnant woman can be far better managed in this day and age.
Quite the feminist?? Your point is what?
Ray, why should attitudes toward females change when its easier to just dispose of them in the first place? A little feminism will solve everything. Dream on my friend. You are talking of deeply entrenched cultural beliefs and prejudices that go back centuries. Maybe we should ban late term abortion until these attitudes change, being there is no medical justification for the vast majority of them. That may force the changing of these values.
My last paragraph is riddled is ridiculed with factual errors, etc.? I think I stated the facts quite simply. Its your side Ray that has fought to keep PBA alive and legal in this country.
My 8:59PM post should say “is riddled with factual errors, etc.?”
Hal 8:17PM
So you have a problem with abortion when it strikes a nerve with you? You don’t agree with abortion for a certain reason so that makes it “insane”.
This is a classic case of “be very careful what you wish for….”
Ray,
Please answer my question as to whether or not you would support sex selection abortion if gender could be determined early in the first trimester.
Mary,
>Please answer my question as to whether or not you would support sex selection abortion if gender could be determined early in the first trimester.
In case you didn’t read my answer to your question the first time, here it is again:
Actually, looking at the result of female infanticide in Asia, a massive surplus of males who seem unlikely to find brides, abortion for sex selection seems like a really stupid idea. But rather than attempt to ban it, I think the way to end it is to work toward undoing the cultural values that drive Asians to prefer boys to girls. I think they need a little feminism over there, and among their communities over here.
All I have to add to this having read Hal’s statement at 8:17, is that I pretty much agree with him, too.
Ray,
I read it and responded.
You said in your 6:33PM post you wouldn’t support sex selection abortion because they would mean arbitrary late term abortions, which you find morally objectionable. Fine, then would you support them if gender could be determined early in the first trimester? Yes or no.
Hal 8:17PM
So you have a problem with abortion when it strikes a nerve with you? You don’t agree with abortion for a certain reason so that makes it “insane”.
This is a classic case of “be very careful what you wish for….”
Posted by: Mary at April 7, 2008 9:07 PM
The difference between us is I don’t believe I have a right to enforce prohibitions on things that “strike a nerve” with me. I have a right to try to convince people that sex selection via abortion is a bad idea. You have a perfect right to try to convince people that all abortion is a bad idea. I’d have no issue with you at all if that was your plan.
Aborting cause you don’t want a girl is no more or no less reprehensible then aborting cause you didn’t want to get pregnant period. In either case the babies lives are of equal value and killing the baby is reprehensible. Abortion mills are the gates of hell here on earth.
What’s wrong with sex selection abortion? Babies can be aborted for any other reason one sees fit.
Mary, good point. Pro-Choicers are for leaving it up to the woman who is pregnant. However, on an individual basis, huge numbers of people are not Pro-Choice without exception, same as for the huge number of people who are not Pro-Life without exception.
The stage of gestation makes a difference to many people, me included, and Ray has done a good job of saying how he feels.
I do see the problems caused by the preference for boys over girls in China, etc. However, where a family already has some kids of one sex, the desire for the other sex is understandable, whether one agrees with it being a good enough reason for abortion.
In my family, girls are tough to get. There were three boys, then my sister. My sister had to try 3 times to get a girl. One sister-in-law had to try 4 times. Another sister-in-law went through 6 pregnancies, though there were 3 miscarriages along the way, before her daughter was born.
In all these cases, the appearance of a girl was a great thing for the families, both nuclear and extended. Not to say that a boy wouldn’t have been loved, and I don’t think that in these individual cases an abortion would have been chosen had the fetus been male, but I can certainly see why people would choose the sex…
Doug
Ray: Actually, I wish we could all just compromise on a ban some where in the middle to late second trimester. The exact point would be set by a committee of clergy and scientists, based on when brain activity becomes measurable. The condition for the compromise would be that pro-choicers would not push for abortions after that point, and antis would not try to ban it before that point. We could all then move on and spend our time more productively, but instead we are locked into this insane grind in which neither side is willing to give up any ground on their demands.
Right on, Ray. I’ve thought the same thing, especially when arguing about that brain activity and just when we see sentience/awareness/personality/personhood appearing.
You know, though, as for that “insane grind,” half the fun in life is getting there.
Doug
Mary, you really need to work on your cross-examination technique. Asking the same question over and over because you are not satisfied with the answer given tends to irritate people, and not motivate them to respond.
Ray,
Mary made her points and provided proof. We’re still waiting for you to deliver something other than your own opinions.
Ray,
I have written about this incident a couple times before, but it’s been awhile, so here goes.
In the mid to late 90’s when the PBA ban was heavily debated, a local pro-choice reporter in the city I was living in decided to spend some time at an abortion facility to get some real stories of women who were choosing that method of abortion.
She was fully convinced that she was going to find out that this procedure was medically necessary for mother’s who had health issues and could no longer carry to term or that they were carrying babies with fetal anomalies.
What did she find out??? These women were choosing late term PBA for no reason other than they decided they didn’t want the baby. There were no fetal anomalies, and no health problems with the women.
Guess what??? She became against PBA since she found out this method was only being used because these women waited toooooo long to get an early term abortion, or they recently decided they didn’t want the baby.
Sickening beyond belief!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“The exact point would be set by a committee of clergy and scientists, based on when brain activity becomes measurable.”
Add to that pot ethicists and those who have a vested financial interest in late-term abortions, we’re looking at quite a committee.
Hal 10:25PM,
Unlike you Hal, I look at sex selection abortion as sexism at its worst, and most primitive. Right up there with tossing baby girls into rivers or leaving them for wild animals.
That is why I oppose it and want to see it stopped. You prefer to enforce no prohibitions.
Ray, 11:33am
Not answering a question is irritating as well. I’ve made the question as simple as possible. If you have a problem with a simple yes or no, then I don’t know how to simplify it anymore.
Doug,
You seem to agree with Ray concerning the issue of gestation so I will ask you the same question.
Would you find sex selection abortion acceptable if a method of determining gender in the first trimester was developed and the baby could be aborted in the first trimester?
Hal 10:25PM,
Unlike you Hal, I look at sex selection abortion as sexism at its worst, and most primitive. Right up there with tossing baby girls into rivers or leaving them for wild animals.
That is why I oppose it and want to see it stopped. You prefer to enforce no prohibitions.
Posted by: Mary at April 8, 2008 1:51 PM
I oppose it also, and would like to see it stopped. How do you propose stopping it (without banning all abortions)?
If a woman can have an abortion for no reason, then she must be able to have an abortion for a “bad” reason. We can only educate and convince as best we can. You are right, I do not favor any prohibitions.
Hal,
Then don’t expect any abatement of sex selection abortions. You must admit this certainly puts feminists as well as PC people in quite a bind. As I said before, a classic case of “be very careful what you wish for….”
While I disagree with sex-selective abortions, I agree this issue could be solved with a healthy dose of feminism and the truth that both boys and girls are equally wonderful. In other words, if we stop putting men up on a pedastal, more families will be open to having female children who can become equally successful.
However, I don’t think this is something you could really mandate or make illegal, considering people could easily say they’re having an abortion for another reason.
Edyt,
I agree with you but that is being idealistic. Why change? Getting rid of females is a much easier way to resolve the “problem”. Sex selection abortion keeps women in the second choice second class status.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. didn’t wait to change racist attitudes, he organized a bus boycott, he led demonstrations, and he organized a movement. He worked to change laws and did. I believe he once said you cannot change men’s hearts but you can change laws.
Should we not try to stop “honor” killings, female genital mutilation, and second class citizenship of women and just work on changing attitudes instead? Good luck. Ages old prejudices and cultural beliefs are not going to change so long as its so easy to dispose of females in the first place.
Just like the Indian doctor who justifies sex selection abortion by saying it is preferable to a woman being forced to give birth to many “undesirable females” before having the much coveted male child.
Sadly you are right concerning the fact people could lie and do.
This is a situation I’m sure feminists never anticipated, abortion taking on a life of its own, so to say.
Mary, I wish we could do more about female genital mutilation, so-called honor killings and second class citizenship… But unfortunately, a lot of that is happening in other countries where we don’t have the ability to change their laws.
We do, however, have the ability to change the way we treat women in America, and hopefully we can lead by example. As women in America rose up to demand voting rights, equal pay (still waiting…) and reproductive rights, so must women in other countries follow by example and revolt on their own. Of course, we can help them lead and provide support, but we cannot change their laws for them. They must choose to do it on their own. I do believe you can change a person’s heart… but it’s not an easy task!!
And honestly, it sucks to sit around watching women suffer and know I can’t fix their lives for them. :( I wish there was more I could do, but I am not a governing body and I don’t have political influence.
(Speaking of genital mutilation … isn’t male circumcision a form of mutilation?)
Edyt,
That’s true, but here in America laws were changed. No one argued that we should concentrate our efforts on changing attitudes toward rape and domestic violence but leave the domestic violence and rape laws as they were, mostly worthless. There was a movement to change these laws, changing attitudes was secondary. Thank heaven since I still see our society’s attitude toward rape as somewhere between stone age and neanderthal.
Yes male circumcision can indeed be seen as male genital mutilation and people are speaking out against it. Babies were not anesthetized because it was falsely assumed they could not feel pain. I remember one nurse reassuring me the baby was crying because he didn’t like the confinement of the “circ board”.
Mary, one of the more horrifying aspects of our current legal system makes jail time longer for nonviolent drug users (approximately 6 years) than rapists (approximately 8 months).
Of course the imposed terms are just under 14 years for rapists/sexual offenders, while drug users are often given 20+ to life. And those aren’t even drug sellers! Just those who use.
It’s ridiculous that a person can sexually assault another person and get less time than someone who is only damaging their own body. And very sad.
Also, I suspect one of the reasons battery and assault are not felonies (except for certain people, like police officers) is because of domestic abuse. With all the people out there who still believe it’s okay to smack a woman around… well, that certainly couldn’t be a felony! Sheesh.
Abortion is legal. How can you tell someone that having an abortion at 14 weeks is legal for any reason EXCEPT gender selection? I think abortion for gender selection is creepy as hell. But abortion is legal and ‘why’ really isnt anyone elses business.
Sorry folks but TR has a point. I read an article 20 years ago concerning sex selection abortion in India, which is certainly not new.
Only this was written by a pro-lifer. She pointed out that feminists wanted unrestricted legal abortion and got it. Now they were crying about the deliberate destruction of unborn females and demanded an end to it.
The writer, like TR, pointed out that feminists and the PC crowd can’t have it both ways.
Edyt 12:53am
An excellent post to which I can only add “amen”.
So there you have it, Ray. Your question on April 7 (Carder, can you name any of these “folks” who support sex-selection abortions?) has been more than adequately answered by your confreres, yourself included.
As TR eloquently puts it: “why” isn’t really anyone’s business.
I don’t make this stuff up.
Mary: You seem to agree with Ray concerning the issue of gestation so I will ask you the same question.
Would you find sex selection abortion acceptable if a method of determining gender in the first trimester was developed and the baby could be aborted in the first trimester?
Yeah, Mary – I’m for the woman being able to choose, in the first place – I leave the reason up to her.