by 
Jill Stanek, once again, gets to the heart of the matter and points out the problems that pro-aborts have to have with things that come out during the day regarding abortion. This time it’s the topic of sex selection. For one thing, countries that have people selecting which babies to abort based on sex have a major problem finding females to continue their race! Since the male generally carries on the family name and line, and males do more work, they are more valuable to the family. And there are some countries that limit (or imply a limit) to the size of the family, and that means that if they have to choose, they choose the boy.
We join her post, already in progess:
Sex selection abortions are also epidemic in China. They’re causing quite a few problems for adult women, such as sex-trafficking, rape, and wife sharing.
It’s logical to presume sex selection abortions are also committed in the U.S., even if only among sexist immigrants.
This phenomenon presents many interesting questions….
- Would feminists/abortion proponents support or oppose a U.S. ban on sex-selection abortions? (If the feminist movement is to promote the advancement of women, wouldn’t opposing a sex-selection ban result in a loss of constituents?)
- If it is only blobs of tissues that are aborted, can proponents even broach the topic of sex-selection abortions? Haven’t they chosen a course of ignorance of cause and surprise at result?
What if certain abortions prove sociologically harmful to born women, as has been demonstrated with sex-selection abortions?
- Does it matter that the female fetuses being aborted are late-term? Is there a difference between early and late abortions?
- What if a late-term female fetus survives the abortion? Female infanticide is also a problem in India and China. So what?
- If, as the Trib stated, Indian sex-selection abortions are “largely a phenomenon of the elite and educated,” should states perhaps take the opposite approach of passing a law to ensure sex-selection abortions are available to poor women via taxpayer funding?
It is wrong, wrong, wrong. Need I say more?
Thanks for posting on this topic. Since I wrote that column, I read a related article in World Magazine, May 27, on refugees escaping from North Korea, that included this:
“At least two of the women crossed the peril-fraught border with China in 1998 and 2003 and then found themselves sold into forced marriages with Chinese men. According to The Wall Street Journal, one endured severe beatings from her husband. The other suffered farm labor so excruciating she injured her back and could not walk for almost a year….
Tim Peters, [who]… heads the Seoul-based nonprofit Helping Hands Korea… At least two of the women crossed the peril-fraught border with China in 1998 and 2003 and then found themselves sold into forced marriages with Chinese men. According to The Wall Street Journal, one endured severe beatings from her husband. The other suffered farm labor so excruciating she injured her back and could not walk for almost a year. China later repatriated her and as punishment for absconding, North Korea cycled her through its network of prison camps, thought to hold some 200,000 inmates. She later escaped back into China.
“Tim Peters, [who]… heads the Seoul-based nonprofit Helping Hands Korea… estimates almost three-quarters of women refugees fall prey to traffickers in China.”
Why is this happening? A shortage of Chinese girls….
The less women there are the more valuable they become. The less likely they are to fall into harms way. You do not wipe your muddy feet on your valuable persian rug but you do not care so much for the far less valuade straw mat. Hopefully with the higher value of women. They will get better chances for education and then the ability to demand their right to choose.
Certainly, the fewer women there are the more valuable they become– if you want to treat women as commodities. Which is what it would devolve into. Whereas that’d be fine for the prostitute– as her rate would increase– it would cause all sorts of fighting and could lead to more bloodshed. Eventually, women would simply be valued for their ability to procreate.
Far from what you envision– women getting power to choose and demand education– they would be instead looked at for the one thing that they could do– produce offspring. They would be forever linked to their reproductive ability. It could even have the opposite effect– where the birthrate becomes so low that they are forced to have multiple children.
People could end up bidding for the best breeders. Why should they pay to educate someone whose sole purpose in life becomes breeding the next generation? Sure, medicine might have to improve so that they don’t die in childbirth, but that would be their value.
As for your rug analogy, sure, I wouldn’t wipe my muddy feet on it, but I’d still walk on it. Although it might end up on the wall, it would have a hard time ending up on the couch, on my bed, or in a display case.