As reported by CNN on August 16 in a post entitled, “Is gender selection of a fetus ethical?”:
A new maternal blood test can determine a fetus’ sex as early as seven weeks into a pregnancy….
But this technology is igniting a heated ethical debate before it is even clinically available. Many fear… fear parents will use it for sex selection, aborting healthy fetuses that are of an unwanted sex.
They are probably right….
It seems highly likely that this new technology, far allowing earlier, cheaper and safer testing than amniocentesis, and more accurate results than ultrasound, will only increase the number of sex-selective abortions.
I was interested to see how abortion supporters would respond to this news. They can’t say they oppose gender selective abortions, because doing so would: 1) acknowledge at least some preborn babies are human, 2) condemn some abortions as morally wrong, and 3) interfere with a mother’s sacred right to “choose.”
So pro-choice ideologues have trapped themselves into standing idly by as females are targeted for abortion in the worst demonstration of misogyny possible, because the right to abort is more important than the lives of little women.
Those compelled to at least acknowledge the dilemma only looked ridiculous.
By far the most disturbingly sexist response was by pro-abortion Rabbi David Teutsch at Huffington Post:
Furthermore, disturbing nature’s course can have unfortunate social implications. In China and India, where abortion on the basis of sex has substantially raised the percentage of boys and men, it is impossible for many of the men who wish to marry to find partners. This is creating an unhappy situation for many men….
Seriously? We shouldn’t abort girls because we need to ensure men have happy homes and bed partners? Only a man would think of that, and a liberal man to boot.
But disregarding Serena’s racial and cultural bigotry, her problem was that the gender test’s labeling left out hermaphrodites and transsexuals. I kid you not:
Many critics of the Pink or Blue test (yes, that’s the actual name) say that the blood test will contribute to higher abortion rates when women discover the sex of their baby. I don’t take this criticism seriously, since there is very little evidence that sex-selective abortion is common in the United States….
My criticism of Pink or Blue is printed right there in the name – pink, or blue? The test reinforces a binary gender model that fails to account for the multiple permutations of biological sex that can occur. Intersexuality is far more common than most of us realize. So is transsexuality. A simple blood test is hardly conclusive – and the 95% “accuracy” rate is questionable if it only looks at two possible biological outcomes.
As if parents inclined to abort the wrong sex wouldn’t run to their nearest abortion mill to abort an androgenous child or future cross-dresser.
Robin Marty at RH Reality Check considered it sexist to even ponder whether mothers might get sex selective abortions:
But is this just another “women abort for frivolous reasons” stereotype?…
If women were determined to abort due to the sex of the fetus they were carrying, it seems pretty likely that they would already be seeking out early detection via CVS (12 weeks), NT scan (14 weeks), or amnio (16 weeks). Learning the sex even earlier seems like it would only make that situation occur earlier, not add to the number of women who would abort for that reason.
Robin forgot she wrote only last year that mothers waiting too long to abort might “never find[ ] the money to do it, or maybe even hav[e] a change of heart.” She also acknowledged later abortions “are more expensive and have more risks.” So, of course, having the option to abort baby girls at seven weeks rather than 16 will only increase the rate.
Ironically, trivializing or ignoring sex selective abortions is only helping create an even stronger paternalistic world due simply to the numerical domination of men over women.
Which means someday the aforementioned good rabbi and two pro-abortion feminists could be forbidden from even posting their foolishness.
[Top photo via Jolly Good News]