Opinion

The gender-selective abortion double standard

Gender-selective abortion: until now, it’s been one of the least controversial issues across the United States. It was a way for liberal feminists and conservative pro-life advocates to come together (at least ideologically) and begin to agree that this one particular practice is offensive to both sides. India, China, and sections of the Middle East and Africa have been known for large numbers of abortion based on gender, and have, for the most part, implemented laws attempting (halfheartedly) to stop the discrimination.

It’s just so easy for us to point fingers from our cozy home country, blaming faulty culture, faulty government, faulty religion, or more likely than not a combination of the three. We clearly don’t have a “sexist” abortion problem, because abortion, in this country, is a liberating right of the modern woman. We are told that we allow abortion because we are not sexist.

I feel like before recent political decisions, a lot of feminists decided that those countries have abortion because they are sexist, and families in those countries are patriarchal and want to make sure that at least one among their mandated number of children is male. Abortion in those countries is wrong, unless of course it’s in the name of “reducing the population,” because that is a major issue. Because they lack women’s rights and effective birth control, those places have to allow abortion; otherwise, the whole culture goes down the drain (somehow…)!

What they can’t allow is gender-selective abortion, which is almost but not completely an even worse issue than overpopulation. Clearly, aborting little girls is a terrible thing, because it’s sexist, and that’s not fair to the entire generation of women denied the right to live solely because of their two X-chromosomes. Therefore, as long as a woman doesn’t know her fetus is a girl, she should have the right to abort it. Otherwise, it’s morally reprehensible. Are you confused yet? I am, but to be fair, I am not a liberal feminist. I’m sure (I hope?) I’m missing some key points here, but I think that’s the gist of it.

Now let me get this straight: if someone in the United States wants to get an abortion, she has every right to go ahead and end her pregnancy in the name of her right as a woman, the inconvenience of the pregnancy, and/or the economic difficulty of raising a child. If a woman in India wants to abort her daughter because it’s her body and her right, or because of the economic difficulty of the dowry, or because a daughter, in that culture, is merely “inconvenient,” she needs to buck up and carry that baby to term because to do otherwise is sexist? I hope the double standard here is obvious.

Many feminists are now claiming that gender-selective abortion is somehow being exploited in the Republican effort to make laws against abortion in general. Gender-selective abortion is now considered either irrelevant in our country or completely nonexistent.

I honestly don’t see how this isn’t a complete double standard based on cultural discrimination and disregard for life as a whole, but correct me if I’m wrong. I would actually like to see some logic in this. If I can only hope that the leaders and intellectuals of this country are actually being logical, I may not feel so pessimistic about the subject at hand. In the meantime, I’m completely appalled and disappointed that the people who value women’s rights so ardently are so quick to reverse an issue once it hits the home front.

I personally think virtually all abortion is wrong, and I’m going to stand by that, even if I risk being affiliated with a group with traditionally opposing opinions, a group that may threaten funding to organizations I like, because I take the issue seriously. No amount of humiliation, loss of popular support, or defunding will make me change my moral integrity. I can only wish that others begin to feel the same way.

Live Action on Facebook
  • Sharon Rose

    Except that the double standard is yours —  LiveAction and Lila Rose have been pushing this hysteria over sex-selective abortion in the US for a few weeks now, and the reason it’s not 

    • Alena

      Sharon, I’d like to make a reply, but it looks like your comment might have been cut off. I would be interested in hearing what you have to say!

  • Sharon Rose

    Oops…

    …the reason it’s not getting any real traction is because it’s just not an issue in this country. 

    Also, this harping on this “more horrible” reason for abortion means you think other reasons are less horrible. 
    I think  you’ve picked a very poor fight and you’re expending an awful lot of energy on something that just isn’t an issue in this country. 

    Sex-selective abortions in other countries are a real problem, but I don’t see any real on-the-ground action coming from the LiveAction organization regarding those countries. 
    What are you doing in China, for example? Or India? Are you on the ground there, are you infiltrating abortion clinics in those countries? 

    I think you’ve fallen into the same double-standard trap you’re accusing pro-choicers of. 

    • http://twitter.com/MarauderTheSN Marauder

      Are they on the ground in China and India? Um, just how much money do you think LiveAction has?

    • Mac

      I actually think you should just speak for yourself. My perception is that it is a real issue in this country. I applaud Ms. Rose and encourage her to continue her fight!

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      Why isn’t a small American organization with limited resources not on the ground doing investigative work in China and India?

      Yeah, that’s a serious question.

    • Alena

      Hi Sharon,
      This actually is an issue in this country, though obviously not to the same extent as in countries such as India and China. This is a great article that gives some hard facts about sex-selective abortion in the U.S.: 
      http://www.pop.org/content/ban-sex-selective-abortions-us 
      LiveAction only has enough manpower and funding to concentrate on one country. I know that if they had the chance to start working overseas, they would jump on it, but I am sure you realize that that takes an enormous amount of time and money. The most LiveAction can do at this point about these issues in other countries is speak about them–which many of their members have done.

      All the best,

      Alena

  • peach

    I wouldn’t accuse the woman in India of being sexist and I couldn’t in good conscience tell her not to have an abortion. The problem is that the systematic structures of India, China and certain middle eastern and African countries are sexist. The government and society tell that men are more worthy than women. Do you disagree with that? I hate to tell you, but if you do, that makes you a feminist. Look up the definition of the word feminist before you poo-poo them. There are different subsets of feminism, and you may not agree with the more militaristic of them, but at it’s heart, you’d find yourself a feminist. The solution to this has to be top-down. You’d have to work to end the sexism in society. Primary prevention. Prevent women (and men – I’m sure the husbands are VERY influential) from even thinking that gender-selective abortions are a good thing. And the way to do that is to give men and women equal rights and equal value, which is (surprise!) the goal of feminism.

    • Emma Croft

      I think you bring up some really good points. First of all, while I said I wasn’t a liberal feminist, it meant I don’t agree with mainstream feminism (i.e. people or groups who support abortion, denounce stay-at-home moms, etc.). I agree that there are tremendous problems in India and China. There’s no denying that women in many of the world’s countries are demeaned, degraded, and blatantly mistreated by patriarchal society. I understand quite well what the Taliban has done in Afghanistan, and I find it completely reprehensible. That being said, it’s pretty ridiculous that there are many “mainstream feminists” who disregard a measure that is essentially a piece of their fundamental belief on the rights of women as being “unimportant” and “not a problem in this country”. Even if it isn’t a problem in this country, what’s the harm in banning it, other than the fact that abortion will be slightly more restricted?

      • peach

         I guess the harm is the old slippery slope argument. If you ban this, then soon you’ll place even more restrictions. If you take away this part a woman’s autonomy, what’s the next part you’re going to take? And even if there is no harm done, I don’t think it’s a good solution to the problem. As I said, sexism is the root of this. We know that banning something, making it illegal, doesn’t mean people aren’t still going to do it. But treating the root of the problem will help with that.

        • Emma Croft

          Unfortunately, the slippery slope “argument” is more of a fallacy than a logical point. We’ll take what comes to us as things progress, but you have to remember that taking away “rights” is a double-edged sword. The ongoing debate between the pro-life and pro-choice is whether to take into consideration the rights of a woman who finds herself accidentally pregnant, or the innocent child (or potential child/fetus, if you prefer more “correct” terminology) who risks being denied the right to life. The odds of this debate ending any time soon are incredibly slim, and both sides bring up legitimate points. I would argue that the actual root of the problem is moral confusion, but that’s obviously up for interpretation. I personally value the right of the unborn being denied its entire life over the woman being denied nine months of normalcy (assuming the option of adoption is taken into consideration, which it all to often is not). Of course, I have my own reservations concerning the appropriateness of abortion in extremely limited circumstances, but an overall cultural disapproval of abortion is my personal ideal.

          • grdawg

            One thing…the innocent child is not a “potential child/fetus”.  He IS a child, from the very moment he was conceived.  This is science – a human being at the earliest stages is fully alive and fully human, not partially or potentially.  This is an awesome paper with great research on that issue:  http://www.dakotavoice.com/Docs/South%20Dakota%20Abortion%20Task%20Force%20Report.pdf.

  • http://twitter.com/SnohomishLiving Stacey Mayer

    I agree with you, Emma, especially since I was born to a young woman who was the victim of a date rape. I wasn’t born perfect, (I have a hand deformity,) and yet, I am a talented artist whose work is shared world-wide, and we have four perfect and talented daughters. My mother told me I was the best thing that had ever happened to her! Now, what could today’s ultrasound have done to a fetus like me, without the mother I had? I could have been discarded on so many counts…

  • suretylink

    Killing unborn human beings for any socio-economic reason is the wrong.  The essay points out correctly that rationalizing and justifying American socio-economic bases for abortion and decrying those in Third World countries is a double-standard.  However, there is nowhere in the world where mass abortion is anything but wrong.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Helen-Sayes/1402656791 Helen Sayes

    Emma – I agree with you. I believe that abortion in our country since 1973 is the great American Holocaust. 
    IF you love the Giver of Life You DO NOT murder the gift.  It’s simply not your choice.