1. Mediaite
  2. Gossip Cop
  3. Geekosystem
  4. Styleite
  5. SportsGrid
  6. The Mary Sue
  7. The Jane Dough
  8. The Braiser

Head Scratchers

The Left Can’t Let Sex-Selective Abortions Derail The Pro-Choice Movement


The latest battle in the abortion war is over sex-selective abortions. But the real issue isn’t whether or not abortion is wrong in that particular case, it’s about whether or not the left can be tricked into compromising a woman’s right to choose in any case.

A couple of days ago, a bill (PRENDA, or the Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act) that would have made it a federal crime to have an abortion based on the gender of the fetus, failed in the House of Representatives. Many people, and left-leaning publications such as Think Progress, have chalked the recent flurry of discussion of sex-selective abortions up to another back-door tactic by pro-lifers to chip away at women’s rights.

“Lila Rose, the head of Live Action, claimed sex-selective abortion is a growing problem in the United States and that the video proves it. But the facts don’t agree with Rose,” said Think Progress, explaining that there is no gender discrepancy in the United States birth-rate to support a claim that the practice is an issue in this country.

But, as Allison Benedikt of Slate.com argued, that’s not the point.

It doesn’t matter that sex-selection abortions are rare in the United States. They do happen.And it doesn’t matter how slimy and slippery slopey the anti-choicers tactics are. (Aren’t you used to that yet? They’re good!) What’s relevant is that it’s entirely irrelevant why a woman wants an abortion.

Strategically, it makes no sense to give in to this idea that there’s somehow something a little queasier about having an abortion for gender than, say, for money. These are equally legitimate reasons (or, if you are on the other side, equally illegitimate). One might make you uncomfortable in your gut, but it can’t make the movement hesitate. Because that hesitation—that pause of, well, yes this one is complicated, or, as Amanda says, this one is “unpleasant to contemplate”—makes it that much easier for so many of those other reasons (money, timing, work) to seem a little not-OK too.

I personally don’t love the idea of abortions based on gender. It smacks of China’s major gender imbalance, caused by such sex-selective abortions. But it’s not up to me to decide when and if other women should be allowed to have abortions. We can’t let the potential ickiness and negative connotations of this specific motivation to abort distract us from the bigger picture — protecting a woman’s right to choose.

And it won’t be the end of the world to accept that it will happen occasionally, for a couple of reasons.

First of all, it’s true that it doesn’t happen nearly as much here as it has in China. There is not the overwhelming cultural preference for sons, or the added pressure of a one-child policy. And second, Benedikt is right that if we balk and agree that abortion in some cases makes us uncomfortable, that opens the door for every other situation to be scrutinized. We have to remember the important and simple message: it’s a woman’s choice.

TAGS: | | |

  • Anonymous
  • http://profile.yahoo.com/6TMWGADCHW3VVQNLI3PRTGFSRY Cynthia

     I’m a fan of the  ”Pro-Choice until Viability Platform.” In our society, abortion should be:~Legal
    ~Widely available
    ~Prohibited after 24 weeks, except when a medical panel determines that a fetus is not viable due to severe birth defects or genetic disease; or when the life of the mother is at severe risk. And, in the latter case, doctors should be required to deliver fetuses vaginally or via ceasarean operation, if doing so would not threaten the life of the mother.
    ~Prohibited for the sake of sex-selection: medical personnel should be prevented from revealing the sex of a fetus to parents until the 24th week.
    ~Discouraged socially via sex education that emphasizes the potential risks associated with sex (disease, emotional pain, poverty, unwanted pregnancy); promotes abstinence in people under the age of 18; discourages promiscuity; promotes sexual faithfulness within emotionally committed relationships; and yet still provides information on effective birth control measures.
    ~Made very rare due to widespread availability of free or inexpensive birth control, and payments to drug addicts and alcoholics for long term birth control and/or sterilization.
    ~Made very rare due to enhanced options for pregnant women and girls and single mothers: free referral and counseling services for pregnant girls and women; caring homes where homeless women and girls can stay during their pregnancies; cohabitation match-making services for single moms willing to live with other single moms; low-cost or free medical care during pregnancy; more fostering via policies that privelege people who foster children from families of severe disfunction and limited financial resources; and more adoptions via policies that privelege people who ethically adopt, and especially those who adopt “unwanted” children.
    ~Made very rare due to the requirement that hospitals, clinics, and medical offices offering abortion do so from the vantage point that abortion is a moral tragedy: that, prior to providing abortion services, medical personnel state compassionately and without judgement that 1) abortion is a moral tragedy 2) that it destroys human life 3) that we can show you your fetus via ultrasound…may we do that? 4) that after having an abortion, some women have deeply regretted their choice 4) that there are options and services out there for pregnant women and girls and single mothers…may we share those with you? Medical establishments offering abortion services should also provide counseling services for these options, or have a quiet room available where pregnant women and girls may call a free counseling service for options within their area.

  • Anonymous

    What you call “potential ickiness”– humans with a true moral compass call infanticide.  Think about this Lilly…if your mom had made the decision to dismember your tiny body inside her womb when she found out that you were female then you would not be here today.  Thank God she made the right decision (especially for you).  The fact that you are defending this practice strikes me as “icky.”

  • Anonymous

     That’s not an argument against letting women make a choice, that’s an argument for being appreciative of your good luck to get to exist.

    A lot of things contribute to a person “being here today”. Being a fetus is just part the very miniscule beginning of a long list of things that make you the person you are today.

    If your father had a vasectomy before you were conceived you wouldn’t be here today.
    If your mother was denied life saving treatment before you were conceived you wouldn’t be here today.
    If you didn’t have a family with the resources to raise you to your current age and you died of neglect you wouldn’t be here today.
    If your mother hated the idea of having a child of your gender enough to want to end her pregnancy for that reason, forcing her to carry you to term wouldn’t erase those feelings and that kind of resentment would make for a crappy childhood, which I hope differs from the circumstances that made you the person you are today.
    If the society you grew up valued you only for your biology and not your humanity, the thinking, feeling, speaking person you are wouldn’t be here today.

    You like being alive, that’s great. So do mothers and potentially pregnant people.

  • Anonymous

    Glad you pointed out the difference. I was shocked when some of my pro choice girlfriends wanted to support the ban…because now women are being attacked with abortion! PRENDA is a red herring and a political strategy by the right to paint Obama as anti woman. We should all see that having the right to choose is the goal, not this emotionally distracting bill that can divide the movement.

  • http://nowtweet.it/2kbq Carla C. Eich

    a free counseling service for options within their area.http://SpecialWork4.notlong.com

  • Anonymous

      ….”argument against letting women make a choice”…

    Your selection of phrasing is so revealing.  Why are you afraid of the word abortion.  That is what it is.  You are trying to fool yourself, which is sad really.  I think deep down if you were honest, you would recognize that the willful decision to end the life of a pre-born baby by ripping it to pieces inside the womb is something that is morally problematic, especially for the case of gender selection.  But the word abortion is too difficult for you even write, so you refer to it as to “make a choice.” 
    You are not fooling me by using that dishonest language, you are fooling yourself. 
    For the record I am against both men and women who “make a choice” to abort (stop) the life of another innocent human, especially for something as trivial as their gender. 

     (By the way the fetus–Latin word for baby or offspring—can have an independent heartbeat by the 18th day of life, far before the gender can be perceived).

  • Anonymous

     abortion  abortion abortion  abortion abortion  abortion abortion  abortion abortion  abortion abortion  abortion abortion  abortion abortion  abortion abortion  abortion abortion  abortion abortion  abortion abortion  abortion abortion  abortion abortion  abortion abortion  abortion abortion  abortion abortion  abortion abortion  abortion abortion  abortion abortion  abortion abortion  abortion abortion  abortion abortion  abortion abortion  abortion.

    Is that good?

    Good news here: You are completely free to feel however you want about fetuses. You are perfectly welcome to love the little dickens with every fiber of your being. You are even entirely allowed to hang on to your bronze-age dated thinking that the blood pumping muscle in the chest cavity is the seat of a person’s humanity. No one wants to take that away from you.

    However, you cannot, nor can any number of laws, force anyone to feel the same way. No amount of restriction, or legal red tape can make a person love and want their 30 millimeters of potential human being if they don’t. If for any reason, a pregnant person is unwilling or unable to stay pregnant, forcing them to is not going lessen or assuage that situation to any degree.

  • Anonymous

     ”Is that good?”
    Yes—That is better.  If you are on the side of having the right to destroy fetuses, then be honest about it and don’t hide behind the phony “choice” language. 

    And…have you ever seen an ultrasound?  I distinctly remember our daughter sucking her thumb, making facial expressions, and even the way she slept with her head tilted way back (which she still does today).  And yet you would call her a “potential human.”
    Did you know that there was an ultrasound video made by a curious abortionist recorded during an actual live abortion as the practitioner proceeded to rip the baby to pieces inside the womb.  The baby reacted as if in extreme pain.  The documentary is called The Silent Scream:

    The clip begins with an ultrasound of the fetus (girl) who is about to be aborted. The girl is moving in the womb; displays a heartbeat of 140 per minute; and is at times sucking her thumb.

    As the abortionist’s suction tip begins to invade the womb, the
    child rears and moves violently in an attempt to avoid the instrument.
    Her mouth is visibly open in a “silent scream.” The child’s heart rate
    speeds up dramatically (to 200 beats per minute) as she senses
    aggression. She moves violently away in a pathetic attempt to escape the
    instrument.

    The abortionist’s suction tip begins to rip the baby’s limbs from
    its body, ultimately leaving only her head in the uterus (too large to
    be pulled from the uterus in one piece). The abortionist attempts to
    crush her head with his forceps, allowing it to be removed. (copied from the movie description)

    I feel terrible about all of the moms who were persuaded to destroy their baby and were lied to about the reality of the situation ( by the way…only someone who is purposely avoiding the truth would refer to a photo of a pre-born baby as “30 millimeters of potential human being”–you’re trying to trick yourself again Quib). 
    How you “feel” about this issue doesn’t matter.  The question is is it
    morally acceptable?  When does life begin?  Should all life be
    protected?  Do the powerful have the right to destroy the weak?

  • Jennifer Tree

    And it won’t be the end of the world to accept that it will happen occasionally, for a couple of reasons.

    http://www.paliadventures.com/

  • Anonymous

    Morality and legality are not the same thing.
    One person’s morality does not get to dictate another person’s body.
    Regardless of how you interpret the significance of an embryo or a fetus, the issue revolves around the inside of someone’s body, and the argument you are failing to make is why anyone except that person should be a moral authority.

      “Did you know that there was an ultrasound video made by a curious abortionist” It was made by an anti-abortion activist, heavily edited, and had an opinionated and misleading narrative superimposed on it.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silent_Scream#Medical_community ,   http://prochoicechristian1.blogspot.com/2009/11/silent-scream-is-lie.html ) I can’t stop you from basing your personal moral opinions on it, but I can say it is not an accurate medical resource, and does not reflect scientific fact.

    Similarly, I can’t tell you how to feel about your own pregnancy, but I can tell you it isn’t possible to see thumbs or determine gender at the stage of development when most abortions happen.

Abrams Media Network click here for advertising opportunities

© 2013 The Jane Dough | About Us | Advertise | Newsletter | Privacy | User Agreement | Disclaimer | Contact | Archives | Send a Tip | RSS RSS
Dan Abrams, Founder | Hosting by Datagram

X