NRL News

Pro-abortionists and “Gendercide”—trying to squirm out of the corner

by | Mar 12, 2013

By Dave Andrusko

Shadowline Films

Shadowline Films

Sex-selective abortion, also quite accurately described as “gendercide,” is one of those very touchy issues for pro-abortionists for all the obvious reasons. Refusing to criticize the use of ultrasound to target an unborn child for destruction if the child is a girl is difficult for even the most rigid pro-abortionists. As self-professed “feminists,” they ought to feel like they are being hoisted on their own petard–the “right” to abort exercised in a campaign that has cause upwards of 200 million “missing” girls—because they ARE.

What to do?

You can resort to the old reliable. For example, yammer on about how if we stop killing unborn babies because they are girls, the door is open to closing the door on the “right to abortion.” Five seconds later language about “back alley abortions” enters the conversation, as if 44 seconds after we try to stop killing unborn babies because they are girls, all abortions would be prohibited everywhere. If only we had that kind of power….

But there are other ways for pro-abortionists to try to avoid being painted into a corner. Many of them appear in Noah Berlasky’s piece in the Atlantic magazine , titled, “Neither Pro-Life Nor Pro-Choice Can Solve the Selective Abortion Crisis.” It uses a new documentary, “It’s a Girl,” which is about gendercide in China and India, to make its case for equivalency,

As you might guess from the title of Berlatsky’s piece, the thrust is that sex-selective abortion is often woven into a larger societal fabric in which girls and women are radically undervalued and that therefore even if we ended sex-selective abortions, women would still face discrimination on a massive scale.

To which you would respond, we never said it was the be-all and end-all. Sex-selective abortion compounds an already morally hideous act, which demonstrates once again that evil will always find new depths to sink to. But of course a culture that devalues girls and women (as compared to boys and men) will find additional outlets, including infanticide. (Note to Berlatsky. Pro-lifers oppose infanticide, too.)

But if we were able to stop the abandonment of newborn girls, people like Berlatsky would tell us, aha, you guys haven’t corralled  the killing: there is still gendercide. However the point is simply that because we can’t contain all the killing is no reason not to do whatever we can in as many different arenas as we can.

To be clear, the title is one of those tiresome efforts at moral-equivalency. (He almost says, “on the one hand”,” and “on the other hand” that.)  Berlatsky writes that the new documentary “also raises some uncomfortable issues for Democrats and pro-choice advocates.”

“Also”? What is that pro-lifers are “uncomfortable” about? As best I can tell, Berlatsky believes that efforts in the House last year to ban sex-selective abortions were insincere—it was just to embarrass Democrats (as if it were possible to embarrass Democrats on abortion)—and was a too clever by half attempt at “undermining the pro-choice argument that pro-lifers are motivated by sexism.”

Only in the precincts where the pro-abortion mind goes utterly unchallenged could you possibly believe that trying to stop unborn babies from being killed because they were girls was really just a clumsy way for pro-lifers to response to charges of sexism. Amazing.

But Berlatsky is just getting rolling. He concludes that “China also presents challenges to pro-life and pro-choice factions.” But that doesn’t work, so he backs up to re-argue that “It seems like ‘It’s a Girl’ doesn’t buttress either pro-life or pro-choice—or, at least, doesn’t buttress one at the expense of another.”

Pro-choicers don’t want the government robbing women of “autonomy,” while pro-lifers “condemn the use of abortion in China as a systematic government-sanctioned murder of children, especially girls.” Six of one, half-dozen of the other.

What an odd spin. I’m assuming the creators of “It’s a Girl” had no interest in being drawn into the debate over abortion in America. They intended to explain why 200 million women are missing.

Here’s what director Evan Grae Davis said to WomenTalkOnline’s reporter Roma Rajpal:

“We had set out to produce a documentary exploring the cultural roots of social injustices. We set out in 2008 to produce the film and we travelled to a number of different countries capturing stories and one of the things on our list was sex selection, this practice of devaluation of girls. We had seen some statistics and heard that this was occurring in India and China, so we travelled to India and began capturing some stories and our team was so taken aback by the scale of the problem there. We had no idea that it was occurring on such a scale and that it was increasing. We figured that this is probably something that happened much more often in the past and is getting better as economic outlooks improve and as countries develop, people would think more progressively. I was so struck by the fact that it is steadily getting worse and is happening on such a scale still today. We looked around and found really nothing on the issue. No one seemed to be talking about it. That’s when we decided that our film needs to be dedicated to the issue of gendercide. The objective of the film was to give a voice to the people of India and China to talk about their cultural challenges and problems.”

I find it odd that Berlatsky implies that somehow pro-lifers should be defensive. We opposed coerced abortion in China. We have for decades while pro-abortionists sat on their tongue. We oppose the misuse of technology –ultrasounds used to identify and target girls for destruction—thereby turning an instrument of peace into a weapon against defenseless “civilians.”

But if we don’t support abortion, the implication so often is we are on the same side of the moral divide as the Chinese government which compels abortion. No, we oppose coerced abortion but we oppose abortion. We can do both.

That is NOT the moral equivalent of decrying forced abortion (on those rare occasions when pro-abortionists get off their haunches) but being in favor of abortion for any reason or no reason essentially throughout pregnancy.

You can read Berlatsky’s piece here.