NPR Was Going On Today About The Terrible Scourge Of Sex-Selection Abortion In India, And How Girls In India, “Have To Fight For Their Rights Before They’re Even Born”…Wait, WHAT???

You're exaggerating: they were just potential baby girls...

You’re exaggerating: they were just potential baby girls…

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.

__________________________

Pointer: WGBH

Facts: PRI, Washington Post

41 thoughts on “NPR Was Going On Today About The Terrible Scourge Of Sex-Selection Abortion In India, And How Girls In India, “Have To Fight For Their Rights Before They’re Even Born”…Wait, WHAT???

  1. That about sums it up. If there are no absolutes things can get twisted pretty quickly. There must be an absolute right to be born and to be alive without someone else intervening because if there isn’t no one has an absolute right to life. I don’t think we want to live in that world. Or maybe, more accurately, we can’t count on living in that world.

    • What happens when two absolutes conflict with each other? The way I derive my ethics system, there are objective right and wrong, but every right action loses at some point to one that is even more right. In a conflict between mutually exclusive right actions, or in a situation where every option is wrong, something has to come out as less wrong, or a decision must be made arbitrarily. I don’t deal in moral absolutes, but I can tell that these feminists are making absolutely no sense.

      • I have to believe there are absolutes. Eternal truths or immutable laws might be what I mean to say. When there are conflicts the consequences are weighed, but the absolute truth doesn’t change. If there are no absolutes you can’t count on anything.

        • I count on being able to make sense of things. What that sense is going to be, I have to wait and see. If we decide what’s right and wrong before we learn about the situation, we’d be hindering our own learning. I suppose my absolute normative statement would have to be in favor of doing what best helps consciousness advance in the world. All other normative statements follow from that and from what objective sense we can make of the world.

  2. I’ve long thought that they just support anything that ticks them off, with no overall cohesive rationale. They rally for things that sound cool and make them look socially conscious to their peers. They really don’t care about the rights of women as a whole, but only about what affects them directly, or issues that make them look “aware”.

    How else can they rally behind Proudman and harass someone over a comment on a Linkedin photo, but then again, approve of something like ‘F*ck-Marry-Kill’ game on Jezebel? You know that WWIII would break out if anyone did F-M-K with a photo of some liberal icon.

    http://jezebel.com/5886947/fuck-marry-kill-the-romney-sons

    How else can they cry that American women are some of the most oppressed women on the planet, and that the US has a ‘rape culture’ while ignoring the headlines about REAL rape culture in ISIS camps, where girls and women or torn from their families and raped dozens and dozens of times?

    Indian girls are aborted in large numbers, that is something that they can latch onto and look like they’re doing something important, and it won’t affect *their rights* in any way at all should they be successful in putting a stop to it. They’re willing to take a ‘right’ that they hold dear from Indian women to score points. If I were to find out that an equal number of girls were being aborted in the US, would they be as quick to launch a campaign?

    • “How else can they cry that American women are some of the most oppressed women on the planet,”

      Are there feminists who argue that “American women are some of the most oppressed women on the planet?” I’ve never heard that, and I talk to a lot of feminists.

      “and that the US has a ‘rape culture’ while ignoring the headlines about REAL rape culture in ISIS camps, where girls and women or torn from their families and raped dozens and dozens of times?”

      Well, people are generally more concerned about problems that take place in their own country, and more likely to protest over issues they feel
      their efforts can change. So to me it makes sense that American feminists would focus more on issues directly facing Americans than what ISIS is doing. (And to be fair, many feminist and human rights organizations have said a lot about ISIS.)

      Indian girls are aborted in large numbers, that is something that they can latch onto and look like they’re doing something important, and it won’t affect *their rights* in any way at all should they be successful in putting a stop to it. They’re willing to take a ‘right’ that they hold dear from Indian women to score points. If I were to find out that an equal number of girls were being aborted in the US, would they be as quick to launch a campaign?

      • But there’s no “rape culture” here in the U.S. Yet another progressive myth (the “1 in 5 female students are raped” absurdity).

      • “Are there feminists who argue that “American women are some of the most oppressed women on the planet?”

        That was hyperbole…I’ve been reading gripe lists written by feminists for years now, a ‘put them all together and what have you got’ frustration has been simmering in my mind for some time. ‘Equality is an illusion’ ‘We still don’t get equal pay’ ‘America has a rape culture’, ‘1 in 5’ and of course vocabulary like ‘virtual rape’ ‘eye rape’ and ‘creepy/creeper’, Take Back the Night rallies (can men walk anywhere at 2 am? I think not), ‘we can’t go topless in public like men can’, Slutwalks….walking around in your underwear and getting the laws changed so you can go out in public without a top are both such pressing issues! Meanwhile in Syria escaped sex slaves are talking about being raped so often that they can’t urinate properly from the damage.

        ” So to me it makes sense that American feminists would focus more on issues directly facing Americans than what ISIS is doing”

        Does that mean that you agree that the US has a ‘rape culture’? The US has laws to punish rapists, they are punished and rape is not thought to be a right of men, nor do most men think that rape is something you should engage in. It’s a heinous insult to American males to say that we have a ‘rape culture’ in which rape is a normal accepted occurrence, and women going about their daily lives have to be actively fearful of rape. I don’t want to go on all day but while we’re on the subject of ‘rape culture’, if rape is such a deathly serous issue for feminists, why don’t they EVER come down like a ton of bricks on false accusers, like Mattress Girl, or ‘Jackie’ ? Here’s an article on why we shouldn’t be too mad at Jackie-

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/06/no-matter-what-jackie-said-we-should-automatically-believe-rape-claims/

        Not once, not Marcotte on the Duke incident, nor anyone who was calling for Nungesser’s head, or those who were screaming for disbanding of the fraternity where ‘Jackie’s’ rape supposedly occurred, have they ever admitted they were wrong, or apologized. Feminists (and many of these women are the faces of the movement) are inconsistent, dishonest, and never back down even when completely wrong, and they’re willing to lie and use false statistics to achieve goals. I have no respect for them at all.

        • Wait a minute; feminists are trying to make it legal for women to go topless? I never would have suspected this, but I just might be a feminist!

    • “I’ve long thought that they just support anything that ticks them off, with no overall cohesive rationale. They rally for things that sound cool and make them look socially conscious to their peers.”

      This is part of the “progress” in progressive thought. What was right yesterday can be wrong today, and it’s not contradictory. The person spouting has just evolved, and there’s no contradiction in everything spinning back tomorrow.

      I don’t know if others have experienced this, but I’ve sometimes been left gasping to make a point with a progressive because it’s impossible to argue by analogy. Every point discussed is distinct, unrelated to anything that was discussed before.

  3. …girls … 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”…

    Yes. This is exactly what they’re doing.

    • Good question; the article seems to assume hypocrisy, but I’m not sure I see it. Perhaps on NPR’s part, but not on the part of this specific feminist.

      • I make no judgment about the activist in Mumbai. She isn’t the one coining this “a right to exist,” that was the story’s spin. My point is that a statement by Ted Cruz about a right to exist would be mocked by these exact same commentators. It’s not hypocrisy—hypocrisy is dishonesty. Holding diametrically opposed positions simultaneously isn’t hypocrisy. It’s stupidity squared by an absence of integrity.

  4. There will be a new wrinkle in this in coming years, when the physiology of sexual orientation is understood better. There may well be many abortion decisions made based on the presence of factors that predispose toward something other than heterosexuality.

  5. “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?”

    No no no, Jack, you aren’t being cynical enough. This branch of feminism isn’t against abortion, just aborting GIRLS. They aren’t against aborting boys. See… that’s a reasonable give and take, right? I would bet you an amazing amount of money if NPR found a rural eastern European culture that routinely aborted male children because girls were more profitable as sex slaves, that the story wouldn’t be about sex selective abortion. I’m just saying. In fact, that’s kinda the name of the game. “We aren’t ever against anything as an absolute, we’re only against things as they can be seen to harm women.”

    • Funny that they don’t see the harm that they themselves are doing to women.
      Since militant feminism began what have women gained in terms of respect, safety, freedom, or knowledge? Not much. In fact they’ve lost in all areas.

  6. This is part of a larger picture. Being a girl or a woman in India is no picnic. In addition to extreme poverty and lack of education, sex crimes and assault against females in India is among the highest in the world. So yes, human rights activists (many of whom also are feminists) are active in India — as they should be. Focusing on abortion – and the selective quote you used above — is counter-productive and I agree that it contradicts pro-choice beliefs generally.

    The problem with sex selection abortions in India (as in China) is that it leads to an unbalanced and unhappy society. If you are a nation of men that can’t find a female mate or wife, then this leads to a whole host of problems — including fraud, kidnapping, rape, etc.

    http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-25/china-needs-millions-of-brides-asap

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/world/asia/india-freedom-project/

      • You know my views on abortion — which I’ve written about extensively here.

        But, to answer your question, yes, the system would be fixed — at least partially. These women aren’t aborting baby girls because they hate girls, it’s out of desperation because their entire economic system hinges on men. Baby girls are expensive and do not provide long term economic help to the family. Baby boys eventually will help the families when his parents are too elderly to work.

          • No no, be fair; Beth seems to be suggesting a long term strategy of socially engineering Asian cultures away from situations where women are a burden. And in the short term that means removing a woman’s right to choose, because who REALLY cares about that, right?

              • Not advocating abortion…. at this moment? On this issue? Because you’ve very clearly supported it unequivocally in the past. So a woman’s right to choose is absolute… But only in a culture you agree with? Please explain.

  7. OK, you are forgetting that their skin is brown. Liberals get to speak for and act as guardians for all people with skin darker than Scandinavians. You see, liberals care more than everyone else and they know what is in everyones best interest to do. For dark skinned people, they need to be able to tell them what to do and pass laws that keep them living in slums for their own good (because you know they aren’t very bright) and for conservatives, they need to be allowed to dictate what they do because they will just be mean to everyone, because they are all evil. These poor Indians have been led astray by conservatives into doing things for their own self-interest instead of serving liberal ideology. American liberals need to be allowed to stop such activity anywhere in the world. Is is for good of everyone, really.

    • Long been my point. Liberals ‘know’ they are the anointed because they care about EVERYBODY. Of course, EVERYBODY (excluding themselves, of course) has a fault and needs liberal ‘guidance’ to fix that fault and continue to exist.

    • That too. They’re the guardians of brown people everywhere. Marcotte at one time was devoting time and energy battling ‘Asian fetishists’, white men married to Asian women, claiming that they married them because they wanted ‘submissive’ women, ‘doormats with no opinions’ etc. Nice slam of Asian women while you ‘defend’ them, eh?

      The MFA Boston ‘Stop Yellowface’ (does that make anybody else feel queasy?) protests of Kimono Wednesdays were carried out by non-Japanese. One protester was Chinese and one was Indian, but a great number were white activists taking up the gauntlet on behalf of the Japanese, who had no objections to the exhibit, which had been a smash hit in Japan. They confronted people trying on the kimono, and made enough noise that the Museum cancelled Kimono Wednesdays. Pretty presumptuous of them to assume authority to speak on the behalf of another people.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.