Culture

Anatomy of a Murder: How Feminism Defends Sex-Selective Abortion

Last year the UK police refused to respond to video footage of doctors agreeing to perform sex-selective abortions that target female babies, claiming that prosecution would “not be in the public interest.” In response to law enforcement’s blind eye, MK Fiona Bruce presented an amendment before Parliament that would ban gendercide in the UK. Originally received with an overwhelmingly positive response, the amendment failed to become law this past week ironically thanks to the seemingly pro-feminist protests of the Labour Party and Trade Union Congress. The language and nature of their protests against this amendment act as yet another illustration of how contemporary feminist ethos, in this case motivated by demented multiculturalism, is actively working against the cause of women’s equality across the globe.

Breitbart London reports that the protest against the amendment was spearheaded by Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, who referenced the language of the Trade Union Congress (TUC) in a letter to Labour party representatives. In the letter she claims that banning sex-selective abortions would lead to “troubling consequences” such as a limitation on abortions for “gender specific abnormalities.” She also opposed the amendment’s use of the term “unborn child” as “children” are granted more legal protection in the UK than “foetuses.”

Her pro-choice defense was so stereotypical it garnered criticisms dubbing it “at best ludicrous misinformation, and at worse pernicious scare mongering.” As to the “gender specific abnormalities” claim, the law contained a caveat permitting abortions for medical reasons, regardless of gender. For advocates of the amendment, Cooper’s preferential treatment of the word “foetus” over “unborn child” turned her argument into a pro-choice one, plain and simple. If only it were that easy.

The real perniciousness came in documents circulated by the TUC regarding the gendercide amendment that stated:

“The amendment does not attempt to address the root causes of deeply entrenched gender discrimination but rather has divided communities.” It also said that banning sex selective abortions might leave women vulnerable to domestic abuse.

Sex-selective abortion is rooted in specific cultural beliefs. That’s right: Stop everything and sound the multiculturalist alarm bells, lest we step on anyone’s toes, child, foetus or otherwise. In a 2012 report titled “Why do feminists ignore gendercide,” the Heritage Foundation details:

“Son preference is a symptom of deeply rooted social biases and stereotypes about gender,” a representative of the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum said in congressional testimony. “Gender inequity cannot be solved by banning abortion.”

Jonathan V. Last, who writes about cultural and political issues, begs to differ. The choice is clear, he argued last summer in the Wall Street Journal. “Restrict abortion,” Last wrote, “or accept the slaughter of millions of baby girls and the calamities that are likely to come with it.”


The Trade Union Congress’s employment of a multiculturalist, hands-off mentality enraged the specific segment of the UK population it was designed to appease: members of religious sects that experience the highest levels of sex-selective abortion. Representatives from the Hindu, Sikh and Muslim communities protested the TUC’s statement as detrimental to the anti-gendercide cause and, quite frankly, racist:

Dr Majid Katme of the Islamic Medical Association agreed, saying: “The claim that the amendment is divisive is ridiculous. It’s rubbish. No-one will accept that. How will this divide communities? This is upsetting only the pro-choice people, that’s all.

“All the major faith groups in the UK are strongly united against this criminal act of killing girls in abortion. Why in a civilised society do you target girls to be killed? Why are we going the way of India and China in targeting girls?”

…Peter D. Williams highlighted the TUC’s offensive attitude, telling us: “The TUC has been rightly rebuked by Asian communities for having suggested that this amendment would put Asian women more at risk of domestic abuse. The unbelievable stereotyping of Asian men and women is fairly repulsive as it portrays Asian women as veritable doormats within marriage and Asian men as misogynistic bullies.”

As it so happens, appeasing minority groups merely masked the TUC’s top priority. The TUC’s largest backer in the fight against the gendercide amendment was the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), the “largest provider of private abortions in Britain” which claimed “…that abortion clinics would begin the racial profiling of women and that abortion services for those from South Asia would be ‘compromised’ as a result.”

MK Bruce shot back at the illogical claim, stating, “Allowing sex selective abortion would not protect women but would condone and exacerbate such abuse.” Her argument was to no avail. In another strike against women (foetus, child, and otherwise) the British Medical Association sided with the feminist multiculturalist assertions of the BPAS, effectively concluding that abortions, including sex-selective abortions, should be performed to appease domestic abusers. Victims, in turn, can add the physically and psychologically disturbing act of a forced abortion to the list of abuses committed against them. As long as the BPAS isn’t losing any business, the Trade Unions Congress has done their job.

Feminists refuse to openly address gendercide, instead preferring to hide behind the argument that:

…bans on sex-selective abortion just don’t work. Although sex-selective abortion was outlawed in India in 1994, the legislation has never been effectively enforced and there has been no alteration in a birthrate that is stubbornly biased towards boy babies. As the United Nations Population Fund points out, this is only to be expected in a state where multiple other statutes and customs enforce the son preference. …Making sex selection illegal did not change the viciously misogynistic conditions in which sex selection took place, and so sex selection did not stop.

First Wave feminists fought for political rights in order to manifest cultural change. Today’s feminists, driven by the Second Wave’s multiculturalist ethos, effectively use politics to victimize women by empowering misogynistic cultures in the West and across the globe. This is not feminism, it is suicide.