Choosy choicers choose back-alley abortions in China
posted at 11:15 am on April 11, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Legal Insurrection notes an interesting contradiction at the Center for Reproductive Rights. In response to the demographic distortion that China’s one-child policy has produced, the CRR has called for an end to forced abortions and government imposition of reproductive policy. So far, so good; we can broadly agree on those goals. However, CRR also opposes gender-selective abortion, which is astoundingly hypocritical (emphases mine):
Our shadow letter underlined many areas of concern, including: harmful effects of the one-child policy such as forced abortion, coerced sterilization, and increased trafficking and abduction of women; limited access to infertility treatment; maternal mortality; sex-selective abortions; and deficiencies in sex education. The Committee, through its Concluding Observations, expressed concern over rights violations ensuing from these practices. It advised the Chinese government to investigate and prosecute instances of forced sterilization and abortion and to strengthen and enforce existing laws outlawing sex-selective abortion and female infanticide.
First, why not just protest infanticide in general? Is it only a problem when female infants are killed through direct action or purposeful neglect? I understand that the problem in China is focused on female infants, but if infanticide’s the problem, then we shouldn’t have to get gender-specific about the objection. Their objection looks specifically outcome-based rather than principled.
It seems CRR has a problem with choice that disproportionately disfavors females. They don’t object to abortion, unless the woman chooses to abort in order to avoid giving birth to a female. But how is that choice any less legitimate than any other reason to procure an abortion? For some, the gender relates to economic status and potential, criteria which in other contexts pro-abortion groups hail as rational considerations.
And doesn’t this negate the knee-jerk argument against outlawing abortions in general? If women want to abort because they carry female babies, then won’t they get back-alley abortions if CRR succeeds in keeping gender-specific abortions illegal? Shall we round up and arrest the mothers? The doctors? And if we can justify doing that for gender-specific abortions, why not do it for all abortions and stop the wholesale slaughter of human life altogether?
If one argues for a pro-choice position, then one would support all reasons for the choice. If CRR and its allies support abortion based on outcomes rather than the supposed ideal of choice, then it’s fair to argue what outcomes they’re really supporting.
Update: Mahablog responds with its usual vehemence for my noting the difference between infanticide and female infanticide, but apparently this blogger doesn’t do much research. CRR opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which tried to fight the problem of infanticide after botched late-term abortions in the US:
In addition to promoting abortion method bans and undermining access, abortion opponents are also supporting the expansion of fetal rights through the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (“UVVA”).143 This bill, similar to many introduced in state legislatures, would amend the federal criminal code to create a separate offense for death or bodily injury to a fetus during the commission of a federal crime. The penalty would be the same as that of death or injury to the pregnant woman herself.144 The bill elevates the status of a fetus, embryo, blastocyst (pre-implantation embryo), or zygote (fertilized egg) to that of the woman for purposes of the offense, and would treat such entities as independent persons for purposes of federal law.145
BAIPA was so non-controversial on Capitol Hill that even Barbara Boxer voted in support, and it passed in the Senate unanimously. Instead of supporting BAIPA as a means to end general infanticide here in the US, CRR opposed it as some sort of Trojan horse for what it calls “fetus rights”. CRR seems to have a problem with ending general infanticide in the US while pushing for action on female infanticide in China and India, among other places. Obviously, they’re not concerned about the actual infanticide as much as they are the way it is selectively applied in these places.
And still, we hear no intellectual defense of opposing choice on the basis of gender while approving on every other basis from CRR. If gender selection is illegitimate for abortion rights, then we can also say that every other choice besides rape and incest — where the woman had no choice to engage in the sexual act in the first place — is illegitimate as well.
Also, for some reason, I kept abbreviating CRR as CPR, which I’ve corrected.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Maybe they are radical feminists who think men are evil, so it’s OK to kill male babies.
zmdavid on April 11, 2009 at 11:26 AM
One step at a time. What position at this point do you think that CPR would be more successful in promoting to a culture deeply immersed in disparate reproductive ideologies? One has to get the foot in the door by first lifting the foot.
canditaylor68 on April 11, 2009 at 11:40 AM
A good question to ask………….
………….. especially on this Holy weekend.
Seven Percent Solution on April 11, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Abortion advocates have long decried sex-selective abortions, specifically because these abortions disproportionately result in the abortion of females. It is not limited to China, though we are seeing the inevitable result.
Ed, you are exactly right. This so clearly demonstrates the hypocrisy of abortion activists who are usually radical feminists. Most who think they support abortion are just unsure and easily swayed by the empty arguments of these men-hating women. It is galling to them that the world still considers male babies preferable to female.
When left to natural tendencies, the balance is remarkable. I remember the year my son was born, there were more boys than girls born. Two years later with my daughter, more girls than boys.
Jvette on April 11, 2009 at 11:53 AM
China is experiencing a decline in their female population for two reasons: 1. They only want male sons if they are forced to have single-child households, and 2. unless a male child is “imperfect”, only females are available for adoption. If a woman learns she is pregnant with a male child, and if she and her husband already have a female child, they will place the female for adoption and give birth to a son. It is virtually impossible to adopt a male child from China, unless the child is ill, deformed, or disabled/handicapped/impaired.
This makes the abortion of male children in China almost a non-issue, Ed. I wholeheartedly believe abortion is wrong, but in China’s case, they either toss female children in the river or give them up for adoption so they can have sons.
AubieJon on April 11, 2009 at 11:56 AM
Do PRO-INFANTICIDERS in Amerika, ESPECIALLY under the current marxist POTUS {I still contend that FDR succeeded in implementing Wilson’s 20th century ‘New World Order’ and was this once great nation’s first marxist POTUS} and self-styled champion as the opposition leader to the “BORN ALIVE INFANT PROTECTION ACT” just get p!ssed off when they see a pregnant woman? Is that what makes them run for a vacuum cleaner?
And does ED!’s article explain why Sarah was hated so much – she actually brought another “patriarchal-oppressor-dumb as a rock- unthoughtful male into a sexist world? [did I get all of the lefties complaints about the evil men?]
Branch Rickey on April 11, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Jvette
It’s almost as if the man and woman are part of the same whole or something. :)
Man haters and woman haters are inhuman.
Dr. Manhattan on April 11, 2009 at 12:01 PM
They oppose this form of abortion because it becomes a tool to support the patriarchal structure of traditional Chinese society. And the destruction of ALL traditional societal norms trumps the support of one of the tools involved.
michaelo on April 11, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Abortionists are so half-witted it’s sad.
The back ally abortion is a myth.
Does life magically begin at birth? If not, then all abortion is murder. If not, life begins at conception.
When one brings science facts into the talk, life begins at conception… the baby has it’s own DNA so the baby is not part of the mothers tissue.
ironmonk on April 11, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Many years ago, I read an article containing an interview with a Chinese school-girl. Among her goals, were to eventually have an “ideal Chinese family; two sons and a daughter.” Asian cultures have traditionally favored sons over daughters, and a forced abortion policy will naturally lead to sex-selective abortions. Which leads to many more young men than young women. Not to phrase this situation crudely, but when young Chinese men would normally be thinking of marrying and starting a family they lack the essential component: young women. So, you have tens of millions of young men with lots of energy, and nothing to do. Reference: The Revelation to John “…which God gave…” Revelation 1:1, NASB. Revelation 9:15-16, “And the four angels, who had been prepared for the hour and day and month and year, were released, so that might kill a third of mankind. And the number of the armies of the horsemen [soldiers] was two hundred million; I heard the number of them.”
On a positive note, two hundred young Chinese men will be gainfully employed; on the down side, their job will be killing a third of mankind.
oldleprechaun on April 11, 2009 at 12:21 PM
“And the four angels, who had been prepared for the hour and day and month and year, were released, so that they might kill a third of mankind. And the number of the armies of the horsemen [soldiers] was two hundred million; I heard the number of them.”
Revelation 9:15-16, NASB
I wouldn’t bother, but when quoting THIS Author, I have an overpowering urge to do so correctly…
May you all have a joyous Resurrection Sunday.
oldleprechaun on April 11, 2009 at 12:27 PM
If a father kills his children it’s murder. If a mother kills her children it’s “choice.”
God help us.
Mojave Mark on April 11, 2009 at 12:27 PM
If they ever isolate the ‘gay’ gene the fireworks on this subject will be spectacular. All though fireworks would probably be a poor comparison. More like WWII artillery shelling.
oddjob1138 on April 11, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Dr. Manhattan
+5
Nearly every culture has favored sons over daughters. Killing female children is nothing new. China’s policies has led this practice to an extreme and as usual a liberal policy has unintended consequence.
Jvette on April 11, 2009 at 12:39 PM
Oh really?
I’m prolife, but I’m also willing to admit that some women will go to dangerous lengths to terminate a pregnancy. AND some women will be coerced into going dangerous lengths by family, friends, or the father-to-be. It’s not a myth.
herrevery on April 11, 2009 at 1:07 PM
Baby steps…then drive the wedge into their inconsistency. It’s taking the roof off, Schaefferian-style. I just made up that word.
Mommypundit on April 11, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Provide a link, or it never happened.
DannoJyd on April 11, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Amen!
When I first ran across the ABORTION issue it was primarily being pushed by men who didn’t want the responsibility of being a parent. Abortion was their preferred choice of being irresponsible. I wish I knew when, and why that changed, not that it makes much difference in the end.
DannoJyd on April 11, 2009 at 1:36 PM
Bruegel’s The Massacre of the Innocents
aengus on April 11, 2009 at 1:38 PM
That’s what would happen in America if abortions were “banned”.
It doesn’t ban the demand for abortions. Many of those females would just turn to people who went to medical school for a little while or someone who read a Wiki article to help them out. Supply, meet demand.
At least now, females have access to professionals and hygienic conditions. You can’t make abortion disappear. Impossible.
Moesart on April 11, 2009 at 1:46 PM
You were thinking about this. I was actually thinking about this.
newton on April 11, 2009 at 1:48 PM
+1
SouthernGent on April 11, 2009 at 1:48 PM
Good job, soldier, you hit all the talking points.
Jvette on April 11, 2009 at 1:50 PM
The charge of hypocricy never bothers the left. They seem to relish it. And they know that very few people will ever see how two-faced they are because the MSM will never tell.
Christian Conservative on April 11, 2009 at 1:57 PM
I can’t speak for the CRR, but it would seem the distinction is that they oppose the result of the act, and not the act itself, of gender-selective abortions. The Chinese, the CRR (probably) believe, are misogynists, and the way to fix that is to return the ratio of XX to XY chromosomes to normal levels.
hicsuget on April 11, 2009 at 2:10 PM
Maybe..maybe…
jukin on April 11, 2009 at 2:16 PM
The Chinese can have more than one child, and do. I guess this is not understood by Westerners. The Chinese government only recognizes one child per family. There isn’t much you can individually enjoy without the recognition; birth certificate, passport, healthcare, schooling, employment – et al, except having life. If your family has enough money, you can buy (not a sanctioned method but still possible) legitimate status.
ericdijon on April 11, 2009 at 2:25 PM
newton on April 11, 2009 at 1:48 PM
I’ve read that stopping the Euphrates is now feasible thanks to a number of hydro-electric plants.
oldleprechaun on April 11, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Of course. Morals are what distinguish humans from animals, you see. If that bothered them even one bit, they’d have to talk to their veterinarian.
newton on April 11, 2009 at 4:45 PM
Except in the fourth sentence:
CRR promotes death, CPR promotes life.
jgapinoy on April 11, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Bravo Mr. Morrissey! An excellent post!
Not to nit pic but you did miss one “CPR” in your opening paragraph. ;-) You know I had to say something!
LL
Lady Logician on April 11, 2009 at 5:23 PM
I will presume that we bring up the argument of abortion in China to correlate with the legislative battle here in the states.
Let me ask a question here that I do not often here asked.
Should abortion be outlawed here in the States and if so what would be the penalty for committing abortion? Will there be any exceptions, in your eyes?
ckoeber on April 11, 2009 at 6:11 PM
Yes.
Since an abortion doctor kills the baby, and is hired by the mother. Murder charge against the doctor, and accessory to murder against the mother (same as hiring a hitman).
Yes, for the life of the mother (such as ectopic pregnancy). “Psychological” exceptions are not valid since they are easily made up.
dominigan on April 11, 2009 at 6:45 PM
I see. At what stage of the pregnancy would that charge hold?
Give an example of the “psychological” exceptions you wouldn’t allow. Also, what about rape or incest?
ckoeber on April 11, 2009 at 8:33 PM
I seem to remember, back in the early ’60s, folks mentioning that if someone wanted an abortion, though illegal in most states if memory serves, they could wouldn’t have to seek out an abortionist, but could find an OB-GYN to do a D&C (dilation and curettage) to help with a “problem with their period.”
So I’ve always wondered just how many “back alley” abortions actually took place. I would guess the back alley abortion and the coat-hanger thing did take place, but many could opt for the D&C and no one would question such a normal medical procedure.
Dan. on April 11, 2009 at 8:39 PM
I have to laugh at the argument from abortion-supporters that if we make abortion illegal, we’d force women into aborting their babies with hangers.
That argument says a lot about a lot of things.
1. Aren’t we at all worried about living in a culture where a woman so deeply hates her own child that she’d ram a hanger into it’s still growing body in an effort to murder it? Is adoption really that out of the question for you selfish women?
2. Are we so depraved in our culture now that we’re arguing against abortion simply because, hell- we need a quicker and safer way to kill babies growing in our wombs!?? Hangers out, suction tubs sucking out the babies brain- in!
When we kill millions of babies every year because we’re too stupid to, ya know, abstain from sex (it’s called self control, and apparently a lot of women do not have it!), and the argument from the pro-abortion side is that we don’t want to put women’s health at risk in the way we kill the babies- we’re doomed as a culture.
TheBlueSite on April 11, 2009 at 11:29 PM
“…then we can also say that every other choice besides rape and incest … is illegitimate as well.”
Why expempt rape and incest? If it’s infanticide then what do the father’s prior misdeeds have to do with the ethics of killing the baby?
Gaunilon on April 12, 2009 at 12:25 AM
Silly mother, coat hangers are for kids.
TheSitRep on April 12, 2009 at 12:59 AM
Good post, Ed. If the fetus has no rights, then any choice on the part of the mother is a correct choice according to the precepts of CRR.
Their “seamless garb” has been severely rent by this recantation of choice for gender selection.
It takes quite a bit of money to have the DNA testing needed to determine the sex of the child in the womb, and abortions for gender selection can only be performed if the sex of the child is known. Ultrasound can’t tell you — it cannot tell you definitively that a child is female. So the working class and peasantry wait until birth and then, if the child isn’t the right sex, they do the exposure thing, AKA post-natal abortion.
If “Every Child A Wanted Child” is the mantra of these folk, then they must certainly agree with Obama’s support for “oops, I dropped the fetus on the floor” kinds of abortions.
unclesmrgol on April 12, 2009 at 3:54 AM
Those are the types of cases most often cited in support of abortion — that the mother really had no choice.
I’m in agreement with your comment, but I doubt the rest of the electorate will ever go there.
unclesmrgol on April 12, 2009 at 3:56 AM
Obviously, at any stage. “Pregnancy” means “carrying”, so the assumption here is that the mother is carrying a child.
Better, why don’t you give a list of the psychological exceptions you would allow, and let us shoot at them. Ditto for rape and incest.
unclesmrgol on April 12, 2009 at 4:00 AM
This effort to blame China’s policy for sex-selective abortion is to pointlessly hang on to the past. The woman shortage in China has far elevated the status of women in China. A woman in China has far greater status than women in democratic India, as basic economics dictates. The amount of sex-selective abortion in China is going down with women’s higher status. A problem that is solving itself cannot be considered a major problem.
And why aren’t we talking about serious issues like the grinding oppression of women in Islamic countries, instead of condemning China’s ecological necessity to reduce its birthrate?
thuja on April 12, 2009 at 11:26 AM
If abortionists are “half-witted”, what does that make you?
Around a fifth of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. Is heaven filled with unborn souls?
ptet on April 12, 2009 at 3:51 PM
Comment pages: