Editor’s note. This can also be heard at www.prolifeperspective.com
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.
Yesterday we left off discussing Noah Berlatsky’s piece in The Atlanic titled, “Neither Pro-Life Nor Pro-Choice Can Solve the Selective Abortion Crisis,” examining gendercide in India and China. It uses a new documentary, “It’s a Girl,” which is about gendercide in China and India, to make its case for equivalency. As we left off, we had just talked about Berlatsky’s attempt to undermine pro-life efforts at stopping gendercide by stamping it as mere “sexism.”
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.” For Berlatsky, it’s 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 nee
ds 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.”
It’s 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 tongues. We’ve long opposed 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.
Again, you’ll want to read Noah Berlatsky’s piece from The Atlantic at www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/03/neither-pro-life-nor-pro-choice-can-solve-the-selective-abortion-crisis/273704. Please be sure to share this edition of Pro-Life Perspective with your pro-life friends using your social media contacts.