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

5. If gendercide is wrong, then why is abortion in America also promoted to poor and minority communities?

Alveda-King-bus-to-abortion-clinic-photo-Copy

Gendercide affects all incomes, but it is felt hardest among the poor and minority communities in many parts of the world. Poor families in India will become poorer when they try to marry off their girls, but wealthier if they marry off boys. So gendercide is more frequent among the poor and traditionally lower-caste minorities in India.

In China, men carry on their family’s wealth and are expected to take care of their family as their parents grow old. There is no social security from the government, so the only real retirement security is sons. Therefore, poor families desperately need their one government-allowed child to be a boy and not a girl. If the legal one child is not a son, it could lead to utter ruin for the poor in their elder years.

In America, abortion is also connected to being poor or a minority.

According to the pro-abortion-funded Guttmacher Institute, even though African-Americans make up only 12% of the population, they account for 30% of abortions. Hispanics make up 16% of the population, but 25% of abortions. And other minorities make up another 9%.

These are a pro-abortion group’s numbers. The unbiased CDC’s numbers are even a little higher.

At least 64% of all women getting an abortion in America today are minorities. And while non-Hispanic white abortion rates are decreasing, abortion among black and Hispanic Americans is continuing to go up.

Abortion is also linked to poverty. A whopping 42% of women obtaining abortions live below 100% of the federal poverty level.  Another 27% live at 101-200% of the poverty level. So more than two-thirds of all American abortions are obtained by poor women.

Over the last decade as abortions dropped in America by 8%, they grew by 18% in poor communities.

Of course, abortion providers like Planned Parenthood target their facilities at both poor and minority communities — terribly disturbing considering Planned Parenthood’s founder Margaret Sanger was a virulent racist, a proponent of eugenics. She believed in eliminating the poor and minority communities in America through contraception and sterilization. Today, Planned Parenthood targets those very communities with abortion services (though they obviously reject that it has anything to do with eugenics).

Consider: abortions have decreased in America the last few years, yet Planned Parenthood’s abortion numbers continue to rise.

In 2005, CNS News’ Randy Hall wrote about his research on the location of Planned Parenthoods:

In nearly two-thirds (62.5 percent) of the comparisons, the communities with a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic had a higher percentage of blacks than the state did as a whole.

It appears the biggest abortion provider is purposefully focusing on poor and minority communities. Returning to international gendercide — one of the reasons it is disturbing is that it unfairly affects the poor and minorities. Well, abortion in America has that same problem.

Shouldn’t all of us be disturbed that so many of the children we are losing are from these communities?

The following question is related to this one in terms of economics.

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.
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
You are 100% correct, Miss. The left wing fascists place no value on human life, except for their own.
48 weeks ago
48 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.
48 weeks ago
48 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
47 weeks ago
47 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
47 weeks ago
47 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."
48 weeks ago
48 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.

48 weeks ago
48 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.
48 weeks ago
48 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.
48 weeks ago
48 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.
48 weeks ago
48 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.
48 weeks ago
48 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."
48 weeks ago
48 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!)
48 weeks ago
48 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.
48 weeks ago
48 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.
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All