New pro-life frontier: Battle sex selective abortions and sex trafficking
I was shocked the other day to read the father of Slumdog Millionaire child star Rubina Ali had been caught in an undercover sting by News of the World offering to sell his daughter to a Middle Eastern sheikh poser, which Ali later denied. Here’s the video report…
Then Rubina’s mother and stepmother were caught on video pathetically fighting over the claims…
Because of that little girl’s fame, we get a glimpse at the pandemic of child/sex trafficking. And I wrote in my April 15 WorldNetDaily.com column that sexism and sex trafficking can only be expected to grow worse for 2 reasons:
Preborn girls are being aborted, skewing the Asian gender balance in particular, increasing the commodity of postborn girls The sheer number of men is increasing worldwide, which will lead to increased physical dominance and patriarchal societies
While the other side fights sexism and sex trafficking, it is actually a cause of the problem by its abortion advocacy.
I’ve been thinking the past few days pro-lifers should really begin pushing legislation banning sex-selective abortions. This is one big way to curb sex trafficking. I’m not sure if this is an area upon which purists and incrementalists can agree. Perhaps purists can tell me.
But this is certainly a solid feminist move, and it would also expose the hypocrisy of the other side, which can’t support it.
Now Joseph D’Agostino has written an exciting piece for the April 26-May 2 NCRegister.com on how pro-lifers can engage on this very topic:
Unfortunately, easy access to abortion has been engrained into the characters of many Americans, and, moreover, abortion has been framed as a “woman’s right to control her own body.” How can the pro-life movement penetrate these ideological and practical defenses of pro-abortion forces in the same way that the debate over partial-birth abortion did?
[Congressman Trent] Franks [R-AZ] has a flanking maneuver ready to go. On March 31, he reintroduced the Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act (PreNDA) to ban abortions sought due to the sex or race of the unborn child. Instead of attacking abortion head-on, this bill, like the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, highlights an especially unpopular corner of the abortion business, one that pro-abortion politicians and activists don’t want anyone to talk about. Part of the reason: In 2006, Zogby found 86% of Americans support banning sex-selective abortion.
Said Franks, who wants ultimately to ban abortion outright, “This may be the most important bill I’ve ever had the privilege to introduce, because I believe it could have the effect of redefining and reshaping the entire debate surrounding the protection of innocent unborn human life.”
Banning sex- and race-selective abortions is “something that every reasonable, decent human being should support,” he said. “And I believe it will win overwhelming support if it reaches the floor of Congress.”
Last year, Franks had 5 co-sponsors when he introduced the bill for the first time. This year, he had 28 as of April 7, including the 3rd-ranking Republican in the House… Conference Chairman Mike Pence (IN), and a handful of Democrats, though no members of the Congressional Black Caucus….
And blacks are being most targetted for abortion! Read the article for latest stats.
[HT for D’Agostino piece: Mary Q.]
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.
how would we enforce such a ban? All a woman would have to say is “I don’t want a baby right now” and not mention any gender selection motivation. I guess you can ban gender testing during pregnancy….
The sheer number of men is increasing worldwide, which will lead to increased physical dominance and patriarchal societies
Ha! Choice comes back to bite the feminists!
Here’s the thing- The ability to murder the baby is supposeably allowable because the baby is within the body of the mother. If that’s the argument, no reasons the mother has for killing her baby can trump this. She can kill the baby because of supposeably valid reasons that spark misplaced compassion, like fetal anomaly, or she can kill the baby because she thinks the pregnancy might give her an unsightly stretchmark or two- it doesn’t matter.
So either the murder of babies is wrong and prohibiting regardless of the reason given, or you grant a carte blanche to woman to kill their kids.
how would we enforce such a ban? All a woman would have to say is “I don’t want a baby right now” and not mention any gender selection motivation. I guess you can ban gender testing during pregnancy….
Posted by: Hal at April 22, 2009 11:44 AM
Hal you bring new meaning to being uneducated regarding medicine. What a pathetic shame.
The slimey abortion doc doing late term abortion use the same twisted logic when they say continuing the pregnancy will cause “irreversible” harm to the mother. All they have to do is glance at the mom and claim she will have “irreversible harm” and then the slaughter is ok.
seems like lying is the foundation of abortion.
I’m sorry I’m uneducated regarding Medicine. My question was asked in good faith. I don’t know why you have to call it (me) a pathetic shame. I think I was making the same point as Jacqueline.
“I guess you can ban gender testing during pregnancy….”
Hal, I think thats the only way it could be done..
It seems that Jacqueline has said everything that needs to be said. I can’t think up any counter argument pro-choice people will have against this. A life is a life, whether inside or outside anybody else’s body.
Hal – I’m not calling you names, but a moments thought about the process used to determine sex (ultrasonography) is going to tell you what’s there – notably by the presence.
Strangely, it’s also possible for the penis to be withdrawn within the body to the point it’s not easily detected with earlier ultrasounds. The newer equipment does a better job.
The real point is – they want the boy, but not the girl. They want to know. It’s not even a matter of not knowing.
So you’re completely missing the point about what is wanted and what isn’t and the reasons why.
I don’t think I’m missing the point. I understand the problem. I just don’t see what your proposed solution is.
How can you ban sex selection abortion when abortion for any other reason (or no reason) is allowed?
Before we ask “should we do this,” shouldn’t we ask “can we do this?”
“..seems like lying is the foundation of abortion.”
…and lest we forget who is the true mastermind behind this, the father of lies himself.
Posted by: Hal at April 22, 2009 1:11 PM
——
Before we ask “should we do this,” shouldn’t we ask “can we do this?”
Hal – your question is purely functional – sort of like asking if a gun is capable of firing, and not if the target should be shot. The only way you’ll know if the gun does fire is to shoot it.
The critical question is are the unborn human beings?
If not, no justification for killing them is necessary, but if they are, then no justification, expect saving the life of the mother is sufficient.
Given sex-selection abortions there is no question of their humanity.
The critical question is are the unborn human beings? If not, no justification for killing them is necessary, but if they are, then no justification, expect saving the life of the mother is sufficient. Given sex-selection abortions there is no question of their humanity.
Posted by: Chris Arsenault at April 22, 2009 1:32 PM
-Now I’m confused, too. I thought Hal was asking how you would ban specific, gender-based abortions. But I think you’re referring to abortions in general.
I’d be curious to know the answer to Hal’s question, as well.
Yeah, I didn’t think Hal missed the point of anything. I’m not sure how you’d ban sex-selective abortion without just banning abortion in general.
S. Korea just lifted their ban on revealing the gender of unborn babies — oddly, the ban, which was a reaction to sex-selective abortion, is not usually thought of as a main driving force behind the evening out of the gender ratios. Abortion is illegal in general there, but is not uncommon, and doctors would often describe the baby as “cute” or “energetic,” or would give pink/blue toys to the expecting parents, to clue them in as to what to expect. Changing views on gender and increasing equality for women, economically and socially, is widely seen as the driving force behind lowering the sex-selective abortion rate. That’s not really the point, but it’s interesting that even in a country where abortion in general IS banned (with exceptions, which are of course exploited), a ban on revealing the gender was not necessarily effective at stopping sex-selective abortions.
I think that a multi-faceted approach to battling sex-selective abortion would be a very good cause for someone to get behind, regardless of their views on abortion. I also think that most of the same tactics used to battle sex-selective abortion would in turn battle sex trafficking, since the two are caused by so many of the same cultural problems.
Posted by: Danielle at April 22, 2009 1:45 PM
Abortion in the US is legally allowed due to a demonstrably fallacious, and some would say, unconstitutional, argument.
Hal’s question presumes agreement that elective abortion is permissible, which is not the case. That’s called a complex question, sort of like asking “Have you stopped torturing people yet?”.
And if logical argument is not applicable to morality, then why complain about violent brute force against any human being at any stage of life?
Isn’t valid argument a means to express justification for one’s behavior?
Morality (should I) always precedes mechanics (can I).
If not, why have laws?
Let me ask you a question – at what point would you not allow a child to be killed for any elective reason and why?
To repeat Rick Warren: At what point does a human being get their rights?
“how would we enforce such a ban? All a woman would have to say is “I don’t want a baby right now” and not mention any gender selection motivation. I guess you can ban gender testing during pregnancy….”
Posted by: Hal at April 22, 2009 11:44 AM
I think Hal has a valid question. If people want to get around a law, they’ll figure out a way. There are probably abortionists who will gladly overlook what’s necessary to do the abortion.
That said, I suppose the discussion of a ban could help bring the problem out in the open.
I think that, in the interest of human rights, it would be best to ban abortion altogether. And, in the interest of children’s rights specifically, I think that anti-prejudice education should be something that schools teach, be it anti-prejudice about gender or race or whatever. There’s more to fighting gender-selective abortions, after all, then bans.
As for what’s happening elsewhere, the best thing to do is push women up to their dreams: allow women to be respected as necessary and, not to mention, amazing members of society.
Oh, and excellent post, Mr. Arsenault. :).
Let me ask you a question – at what point would you not allow a child to be killed for any elective reason and why?
Posted by: Chris Arsenault at April 22, 2009 2:50 PM
-Well now we’re back at the ‘do you believe a fetus is really a baby’ no-win argument…which we of course, won’t agree on. Obviously, I do not view fetuses the same as born children. So to answer your question, there isn’t a point where I would allow my child to be killed for any reason.
Posted by: Danielle at April 22, 2009 4:49 PM
——
I’m not asking for your opinion on whether a child is human or not. And I’m not asking about your own child – but “a” child.
To be pregnant means to “be with child”. In fact, a doctor must declare pregnancy according to state law – it’s a medical diagnosis, which establishes a fact. There’s no doubt scientifically or medically what that means. You can’t have an abortion if you are not pregnant. And yes, medically, a fetus is a baby, whether you say so or not.
If you can’t even be intellectually honest with yourself Danielle, how can you expect others to take what you have to say seriously?
If you can’t even be intellectually honest with yourself Danielle, how can you expect others to take what you have to say seriously?
Posted by: Chris Arsenault at April 22, 2009 6:09 PM
-Like I said, a no-win argument.
I never said I don’t think a fetus is a human being. Or living. Or life. It is.
I don’t think its a baby. I think it’s becoming a baby. I think it will be a fully formed person when it’s born.
This is not a scientific argument. It is a philosophical one.
Sorry, anon above was me.
Posted by: Danielle at April 22, 2009 4:49 PM
Well now we’re back at the ‘do you believe a fetus is really a baby’ no-win argument…which we of course, won’t agree on. Obviously, I do not view fetuses the same as born children. So to answer your question, there isn’t a point where I would allow my child to be killed for any reason.
——————————————————
Danielle,
Your view, your opinion, your perspective may be valueable to you, but if it does not hold up to scrutiny of an intellectulally honest challenge then it has no real value except to demonstrate the absurdity of ‘It is so because I believe it to be so.’
You may believe that the sun will first appear in the west in the morning, but while you are standing there facing the west waiting for the first rays to appear on the horizon, the back of your neck is going to get sunburned and your own shadow will declare how worthless your ‘opinion’ really is.
yor bro ken
Slum Dog Millionaire, is about three muslim children/teenagers/adults struggle to escape the ghetto poverty of India.
Rubina Ali who is the child actress who portrayed Latika has now become the innocent and unwilling victim of fantasy foretelling reality.
Did you notice the tattoos on her arms in the movie?
Did you notice they were also on her arms in the video clips?
I suppose it is just one those cultural differences that us angry white guys,still clinging to our God and our gun, are having a hard time encorporating into our western world view.
I am going to have to ask one of my Indian muslim friends about the cultural significance of tattooing young girls.
The other odd thing about the video clip was the newspaper foto. It was the adult male who’s face was blurred, not the minor child.
Only the facts have been changed to protect the guilty.
yor bro ken
Posted by: Danielle at April 22, 2009 10:20 PM
And I’m a fool for taking you seriously. My bad.
Posted by: Chris Arsenault at April 23, 2009 6:15 AM
-It’s fine with me, Chris. Honestly. Feel free to scroll past my comments moving forward.
You can see that Christians have the only finally effective answer to feminists such as Danielle. In a godless universe the ultimate author of every child is its mother, and the mother as the potter (Jer. 18) therefore has power over the child, to grant or withold life. According to Danielle, it’s none of my business whether someone else’s pre-born child lives or dies. And even if Danielle herself–as a woman–personally regards most abortions as inappropriate, what gives her the right to enforce “her morality” on some other woman? Danielle has no jurisdiction. The civil government has no jurisdiction. This is how she thinks.
You know what I believe. Morality is only relative to God, the source of all good. God has claimed the power of life and death over every human being (Gen. 9). He made the first man in His own image. All other human beings (including all women) derive from that first man. Even the Lord Jesus Christ derives from that first man in a limited way (through His mother but not His Father). God is the potter, and He has said (inference), “Don’t kill anyone, not even your child. Your child belongs to Me.” Actually, He seldom, if ever, explicitly said that parents should not kill their children: such depths of depravity never even entered His mind, that people might think He would be pleased with such sacrifices (Jer. 19:5). God enforces morality (restricts evil) by means of the civil government, His minister of justice (Rom. 13). To it He gave the power of the sword, which is used to kill.
Subjective morality, an ultimately human authorship, and an ultimately female authorship (the father is not the author)–these are all lies that secular humanists like Danielle require to justify the forced abortion of pre-born children. Now how do you respond to Danielle without appealing to Christian truth? In the end you must. Even if you convince her that forced abortion is the killing of a person, she will say, “So, what?” According to her, the civil government has no authority to thus interfere with family government. Danielle says that she would alert the authorities if she knew of a mother murdering a newborn child (a person according to Danielle), but Danielle’s position on such a murder case is not truly principled. She has a deeper conviction. According to her, every mother has the power of life and death over her own body and the additional bodies that she produces.
As Chris Arsenault suggests, Danielle’s personhood theory appears to be an add-on to make her parasitic-fetus ideology more palatable. It’s not logically necessary, but in a rights-based democracy it’s aesthetically necessary. Personhood theory and quality-of-life morality have been around in Europe for a while and are making their way into America (see Infanticide Goes Mainstream and Why Prolife Arguments Need an Update). The Europeans have so distanced themselves from Christian truth that they are able to kill born children.
“Personhood theory and quality-of-life morality have been around in Europe for a while and are making their way into America (see Infanticide Goes Mainstream and Why Prolife Arguments Need an Update).”
Jon,
Thanks. We pro-lifers have our work cut out for us. It seems what happens in Europe always finds its way to the U.S. Is there much Pro-life activism in Europe?
Sorry, Janet. I don’t know much about what’s happening in Europe. Lifesite often reports on the whacky United Kingdom, though, where there is some pro-life activism. Poland seems to be quite strongly pro-life; Ireland and some other Roman Catholic countries might be too. What little I do know I get from reading http://www.lifesite.ca