Driving from Boston to Providence, I had an opportunity to listen to a Public Radio International report (via Boston’s NPR station, WGBH) about the shortage of women in India as a result of sex-selection abortion. I heard an interview with an activist in Mumbai who was fighting to get more laws passed to prevent the process as a violation of women’s rights. “The most basic right of all,” intoned a female reporter. “The right to exist.”
Waiiit a minute. As the Robot used to say on “Lost in Space,” “That does not compute.”
This same network routinely features angry, self-righteous and mocking feminists who condemn as the paleolithic enemies of women any one who dares to question the ethics of abortion on demand. The unborn have no right to exist, says NOW, NARAL, Nancy Pelosi, the casual harvesters of little livers at Planned Parenthood, and when they are talking about the U.S., NPR.
In India, however, there is a right to exist, and feminists are fighting for it.
Sorry to be obtuse, and I realize I may be missing something, but what is the outrageous distinction here that makes an Indian mother’s abortion of a healthy, gestating girl because dowries are too expensive and boys are more lucrative a human rights violation, worthy of that special tone of sadness and superiority NPR announcers get, but Laura from Nebraska’s abortion of her healthy, gestating boy because she doesn’t want to interrupt graduate school and isn’t wild about the father a noble expression of modern female power?
Is it the motive? It can’t be that…really? Because the Indian family’s decision seems at least as justifiable as Laura’s, and maybe more so. It doesn’t matter one bit to a healthy unborn child heading to daylight why he or she is being denied life, and unless it is a matter of life or death to the mother, it shouldn’t matter to the law. It definitely doesn’t matter in ethics, where life holds the highest rung in any balancing exercise, and thus those few who care to think about abortion rather than just accept it as politically correct cant have to concoct all sorts of rationalized arguments to pretend that a living fetus is less than alive.
Is the distinction that it is girls that are being aborted instead of boys, and thus feminists are willing to adopt a region-specific, limited boundary, sexist definition of a “right to exist” just for Indian abortions? If this is the thinking, the pro-abortion movement not only has no integrity, it has anti-integrity, that will explode like an H-bomb if it comes in any contact with its cosmic opposite. I hope that’s not the reasoning.
Or is the reasoning, as I have long suspected, simply that life is a silly putty concept that feminists can stretch, pound, flatten, twist and poke holes through in any manner they choose, according to what fits their cynical, self-serving definition of “rights” as it relates to any issue that comes along? I don’t see how the left-wing feminist ideologues can chatter on about a girl”s right to be born in India and a woman’s right to choose not to let a girl be born in the United States and not suddenly suffer dangerous brain-lock from the contradiction.