China’s one child policy has led to a terrible problem with sex selection abortion, leading to tens of millions fewere females than males, causing a crisis in gender distribution that threatens to undermine China’s stability. From the story:
Selective sex abortion causes 32 million excess males in China April 10th, 2009 Selective abortion in favour of males has left China with 32 million more boys than girls, creating an imbalance that will endure for decades, an investigation released on Friday warned. The probe provides ammunition for those experts who predict China’s obsession with a male heir will sow a bitter fruit as men facing a life of bachelorhood fight for a bride.It seems to me that such sex selection is ipso facto bigoted and sexist, and should be prevented. They not only do discrimination-based abortions fly in the face of human exceptionalism, but further the drive to establish a new eugenics.
A House bill, H-the Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2009 (don’t ya just love the way legislation is named?) would prevent sex and racially-based abortion. From the bill:
Sec. 249. Discrimination against the unborn on the basis of race or sexCivil penalties would also apply as well as injunctive relief.
(a) In General- Whoever knowingly— (1) performs an abortion knowing that such abortion is sought based on the sex, gender, color or race of the child, or the race of a parent of that child; (2) uses force or the threat of force to intentionally injure or intimidate any person for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection or race-selection abortion; or (3) solicits or accepts funds for the purpose of financing a sex-selection abortion or a race-selection abortion; or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
I think this is a good thing because the message of passing such a law—even in the face of difficulty in enforcement—would promote universal human equality. But the bill should be expanded to include discrimination against sexual orientation—in case a test is ever developed to determined whether a fetus will have a predisposition to being gay—as well as disability. Such a law would pull us back from the eugenic notion that not only do we have a right to have a baby, but to have only the baby we want.
But I know this is spitting in the wind, at least with the current Congress and with President Obama wanting zero federal and state regulations over abortions. Alas, even the most blatant and lethal discriminatory attitudes are countenanced by our cultural elites if they are imposed against fetuses.
Meanwhile, Oklahoma may soon pass a sex selective abortion ban of its own. If it does, expect the lawsuits to fly.
Time is short, so I’ll be direct: FIRST THINGS needs you. And we need you by December 31 at 11:59 p.m., when the clock will strike zero. Give now at supportfirstthings.com.
First Things does not hesitate to call out what is bad. Today, there is much to call out. Yet our editors, authors, and readers like you share a greater purpose. And we are guided by a deeper, more enduring hope.
Your gift of $50, $100, or even $250 or more will bring this message of hope to many more people in the new year.
Make your gift now at supportfirstthings.com.
First Things needs you. I’m confident you’ll answer the call.
