Get PJ Media on your Apple

PJM Lifestyle

What the International Gendercide Crisis Must Teach America About Abortion

Five questions Planned Parenthood's advocates don't want to answer.

by
Paul Cooper

Bio

October 14, 2013 - 3:00 pm
Page 1 of 6  Next ->   View as Single Page

shutterstock_70178368

One month ago my wife and I did something that would be illegal in some parts of the world. We had our third child, and for the third time we had a girl.

It was one of the most joy-filled moments of our lives, but for millions of parents, having even a second or sometimes a first daughter is an impossibility. In China, India, and other parts of the world, girls are unwanted. They are viewed as having no value to the government and little value in society or even to their own families. The result has been widespread gendercide, the systematic and deliberate destruction of girls, typically through abortion. Sometimes through infanticide.

Some estimates say the world is missing over 200 million girls thanks to the practice of gendercide. Most of those come from China and India, where they eliminate more girls every year than America has births.

Since 1979, China has had a one-child policy, and boys are the preferred of the two choices for mostly economical reasons. The government penalizes families monetarily for having more than one child and also takes part in forced abortion and forced sterilizations if the women don’t take care of it themselves. This obviously has created an unbalanced male population, and some of the side effects have been increased child abuse and sex trafficking.

In India the government officially frowns on gendercide, yet they turn a blind eye to it. They outlawed using ultrasounds to determine gender because it led to so many abortions of girls. However, they ignore that the practice still goes on.

One study of 8000 abortions in India, for example, showed that 7999 of the aborted babies were girls.

In India, the problem is plain economics for families. Arranged marriages work in a way where the parents of the bride have to pay a large dowry to the parents of the groom. Having boys creates wealth, while having girls diminishes it. The girls who do manage to live often are born into a family that rejects them. In fact, one of the most common names for girls in this situation in India is a Hindi name that means “unwanted.”

The once ignored problem of gendercide is just starting to get attention in media, culture, and even among a few politicians. In fact, a new documentary was recently released called It’s a Girl! that looks at sex-selective abortions and infanticide of girls in depth. The movie is a heartbreaking expose, painfully declaring that the three most deadly words in the world are “it’s a girl.”

YouTube Preview Image

The film is sparking a growing conversation in America. The filmmaker has even screened the film to feminist and pro-choice groups in hopes of getting everyone unified against gendercide. But we should take this conversation a step further: we should be asking if the elimination of female babies in other nations can teach us about abortion right here in America.

By asking questions about the commonalities gendercide shares with abortion in America, we might all learn something. Following are five thought-provoking questions, the answers to which require pro-choice Americans to question how they can support abortion in America while being against gendercide elsewhere.

You may find the first question and quote along with it a bit disturbing.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
So now we're getting worked up about women's motives for an abortion when legalized abortion is already routinely used for reasons as specious as "it'll ruin my college experience." Give me a break. This is the essence of abortion: it's murder. These baby girls have no more of a claim to being victims than any little boy murdered because his mother didn't wanted to be burdened with bringing him into this world.

Getting worked up about "gendercide" as a special issue independent of the crime that is abortion on demand is just feminist nonsense. It's just whining about not being able to have your cake and eat it too.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
You are 100% correct, Miss. The left wing fascists place no value on human life, except for their own.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
The basic difference in allegiance to "the good of the collective" versus "the value of the individual" must be emphasized.

Downs syndrome individuals were asked about the value of their lives, and they said they very much appreciated and valued their own lives.

At the core of the socialist mentality, the value of individuals is reserved for only the elite at the top, the rest of humanity is regarded as a kind of raw material for the use of the state. Thus their anthem of equality and fairness is a pure lie from the get-go.
41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (20)
All Comments   (20)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
my best friend's step-aunt makes $68/hr on the internet. She has been fired for 8 months but last month her pay was $16664 just working on the internet for a few hours. read this post here....www.Bay95.com
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
my roomate's mother makes $87 hourly on the laptop. She has been fired from work for five months but last month her payment was $13386 just working on the laptop for a few hours. more information....WWW.Rush64.COM
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
Unfortunate choice of names for the subject. It's cutesy-poo witty and lacks seriousness. A better term would be "extermination of 1/2 a nation's potential GDP." Or just simply, "extermination."
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
There is a much more explicit link between Planned Parenthood and the one-child doctrine of India and China. This is brought out very clearly in Robert Zubrin's "Merchants of Despair", in which he shows how the "pro-choice" lobby is the direct descendent of the Malthusians, via the eugenicists, many of the latter having re-invented themselves, somewhere around 1945, as cheerleaders for "population control".

Since the populations to be "controlled" were exactly the same as those most despised by the eugenics movement, this didn't involve any new thinking, beyond a new sales pitch, backed enthusiastically by Planned Parenthood, which post-war governments swallowed whole. Countries showing steep population growth were offered money, conditional on their adoption of methods of stemming the increase. That led to the one-child doctrine in China, forced sterilisation in India and grotesquely crude forms of contraception in sub-Saharan Africa (where, Zubrin suggests, the repeated use of contaminated equipment may plausibly explain the very high HIV rates, which, uniquely, affect women more than men).

All of these policies are brutal, none more so than the Chinese, which leads to abominations such as the "Dying Room", where tiny, defenceless girls are abandoned to die. Zubrin includes a photograph of Mei Ming, a victim of this barbarity, her heart-breakingly sad expression one of utter bewilderment.

It may be true that all these societies (and possibly all others) have traditionally tended to favour boys over girls, but it is the enforced restriction of family size that has made being female a capital offence, because the arrival of a daughter was never considered to be such a disaster, while the state took no interest in the size of families.

Now we have well over a generation of Indians and Chinese who are the products of these policies and for whom, presumably, sex-specific abortion is commonplace, which is why they carry their anti-girl prejudices with them, even when they emigrate. Although the supposed rationale for these policies is the most blatant anti-science (and consequently beloved of greenpeace, Paul Ehrlich, the UN etc.), the Chinese regime would far rather tolerate the continued existence of "Dying Rooms" than admit that the policy has been disastrously wrong. Likewise, there are plenty of vested interests in Delhi and Pretoria that would prefer to maintain the status quo and there are plenty of politicians in the West, including in the WH, who will support those interests.

40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
As the article said, "Girls equal poverty."

True in Western countries too. Girls cost more to raise; ask any parent who has had both boys and girls. Then girls become women. And then they take boyfriends and husbands to the cleaners with excessive spending and debt during a relationship, and child support and alimony/palimony after. Many divorced men end up in poverty as a result. Yes, girls equal poverty.

Maybe those people in China and India aren't as dumb as you think about this issue.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Many divorced men end up in poverty as a result."

Call me skeptical, but I've never seen a stat that supports that conclusion. Uniformly the man's income increases the minute he ditches his girl friend/wife.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
Nemesis, of course, will have his or her revenge, come the fateful day. Millions of young men with no brides to temper their passions, will more than like "loose the hounds of war" to gratify their unslaked sense of want. Gendercide as a search for wealth, in my mind, will ultimately lead to the same old destruction of wealth that we have all too often seen as the just fruits of the sinful few. Even now the Four Horsemen are grinding their Scythes to a new sharpness never before seen. When the Boys are ready to Ride, and their saddle girths are full tight and secure, some heads are going to roll. Marx my words.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
John Batchelor has been saying this for several years on his radio show re: China. There's the place to watch because it is government policy. Other nations like India where the policy is only tacit and culturally driven rather than government driven, you can't get reliable numbers.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
In NYC every year the majority of all African-American babies are aborted. This has been going on as long as statistics have been kept - shortly after Roe v. Wade. The Hispanic rate is lower, the White rate lower still, and the Asian rate the lowest of all. And where does Planned Parenthood locate its "clinics"? "Where do you go duck hunting? Where the ducks are."
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
Getting the state more involved is not going to help anyone. Getting the state out of making problems for people, and out of the business of 'enabling' people who chronically make bad decisions will do far more.

I'd rather consider my peers as competent adults, who have to decide between multiple bad outcomes, as being able to deal with their problems, without having to second guess them. In far too many ways, from the trivial to the life altering, government has effectively eliminated my rights and my agency, and I'm sick of it.

Otherwise, where do you stop? Compulsory regular testing for pregnancy? Compulsory sterilization and only allow reproduction with a permit? (HAH, Dad still won't get a say!)
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
Let's not lose the abortion fight out of the gate. The author writes that when expectant parents learn that their child will probably have cystic fibrosis, the abortion rate is 85% or 90% and that is equally wrong and alarming because these children will have the same intrinsic value as other children.

If the author claiming that the parents do not see the equal value and are merely feeling sorry for themselves or are they making the mistake that a life of hardships is not worth living and that is true for the child as well?

There is something disingenuous about arguing that everyone else is always morally corrupt. Its just not true.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
Probably the most ludicrous notions Conservatives carry with them - through no fault of their own - unfortunately they tend to have college degrees - are economic.

Re "the parents of the bride have to pay a large dowry to the parents of the groom. Having boys creates wealth, while having girls diminishes it."

This is the economic nostrum that if the price of something goes up less are bought and if the price goes down more is. The price of a wedding for a girl is high, the price of a wedding for a boy is low.

I have met tons of Indians in my life, mostly girls, and nowhere was the above in play. Does the author mean that if an Indian family with a girl has little to offer the boy and his family won't be satisfied?

As for the notion that some girls are named unwanted - this is proof of what? Its probably proof of the Cinderella story than anything else.

Otherwise great article.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All