Abortion and the right way to kill our daughters
February 22, 2012 | 8 Comments
Recently, the Canadian Medical Association Journal made some waves with an editorial arguing in favour of regulations that would effectively ban sex-selective abortion. The desire to fight the misogyny associated with female feticide was quickly embraced by the population, as opinion polls showed that a clear majority of Canadians would support laws criminalizing sex-selective abortion.
In the face of this blatant form of sexism, the impulse to do something is understandable – commendable, even – but the urge to restrict, by law, the ability of women to gain their own medical information is so misguided as to be completely backwards.
This issue gained quite a bit of traction with some rhetorical wordplay aimed at eliciting a visceral response. The CMAJ’s editorial speaks of “aborting daughters” and saving “thousands of girls”. Other advocates of banning sex-selective abortion speak of “aborting girls” and “lost women”. Even in the medical journal, the discussion immediately turned from the clinical term “feticide” to the arguably inaccurate talk of “daughters” and “girls”. Such verbal sleight-of-hand brings on thoughts and images of little girls – children – alive and playing in a park, or dancing with friends, or hugging their loving parents. It is these live children that we think of as the “victims” of sex-selective abortion.
But this is a trick. This ploy is not used to fight sexism, but to rage against abortion, for there is no logical way in which sex-selective abortion kills children but all other elective abortions do not. To suggest, on these grounds, that we need a law to end sex-selective abortion is to argue that there are acceptable ways to kill our daughters.
The CMAJ editorial claims continued support of current abortion rights, but such a law would be a direct assault on a woman’s freedom. Arguing that women still have the freedom to choose abortion focuses on the aspect of freedom rather than the aspect of choice. The CMAJ is quite up-front in their desire to see fewer women choosing abortion. That they would do this not by criminalizing abortion is immaterial. By arguing that they restrict the information that women may use in making a choice, they are changing the decision-making structure in such a way as to stop them from opting for a medical procedure they would otherwise choose. However nuanced, the effect is the same; choice is reduced.
It could be argued that a woman living in a community that values females so little as to regularly engage sex-selective abortion will not have a real choice in the termination or continuance of her pregnancy. It is absolutely true that people in oppressive or coercive situations often have little choice but to follow the commands of their oppressors. However, we can acknowledge the perversion of some women’s freedom of choice without assuming away the agency of every woman. Further, it is not clear that infantilizing women will help them achieve status equal to the men of their community. That such a chauvinistic sentiment can be wrapped up as an attack on sexism is almost absurd enough to be funny.
The point of the CMAJ editorial was not, allegedly, to act as an assault on abortion rights, but to offer a means to fight inequality. Nowhere in their editorial, nor in any of the other arguments I have read in favour of banning sex-selective abortion, has there been an explanation as to how forcing thousands of unwanted daughters on these supposedly sexist communities will eradicate misogyny. Good intentions are not sufficient for good public policy.
To curb the freedoms of Canadians, we generally demand a demonstrable social ill that needs to be addressed. Sexism is a social ill, but a nebulous one. There are many ways to fight it, but few legal means to address it directly. When we have – as with universal suffrage and labour laws – we have identified a specific manifestation of sexism and tackled that problem. To act on the CMAJ’s recommendation, we would need to identify a significant, large-scale problem, but advocates of criminalizing sex-selective abortion have offered no evidence of a society-wide problem.
According to the 2006 census, the split by sex of children 0 to 4 years old was 51% to 49% male, hardly indicative of a lost generation of daughters. There is evidence that Canadians of certain ethnic backgrounds may have a greater propensity to abort based on sex than the population as a whole, but, still, there is no evidence of a tragic imbalance of the sexes in these pockets of society.
Further, even if such a disparity were to appear in certain ethnic communities, such an occurrence, alone, does not warrant a legal remedy. In such circumstances, the only purpose that criminalization would serve would be to ensure that men of certain ethnic backgrounds have a sufficient supply of women of the same ethnic background with whom to marry or procreate. Public policy should never be used to maintain such notions of ethnic purity.
In the end, we return to abortion. This debate, at its essence, is not about sexism; it is not about population imbalances; it is not, hopefully, about tribalism. It is about abortion, and it is about restricting the choices of women by gaming the choice architecture. If we assume that the CMAJ’s proposal was not born from some gruesome form of accounting (had it been, we could just abort more male fetuses), then we are left with little else than a desire to reduce the total number of abortions.
Reducing abortion in Canada is a wonderful goal, but we should not infantilize women in our attempt to achieve it. Birth control, sex education, improving the economic prospects of all women and fighting sexism head-on are the ways that we will reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.
Making choices for women does nothing to empower them.
Comments
8 Responses to “Abortion and the right way to kill our daughters”
Leave a Reply
February 22nd, 2012 @ 12:24 pm
It is estimated that about 50 million girls have gone missing. They are aborted based on their sex. India has passed laws 18 years ago making it illegal for a medical practitioner to reveal the sex of an unborn baby. This law is rarely implemented because most of the government officials and judiciary are apathetic to this epidemic. This has caused the sex ratios to be extremely skewed in certain parts of India.
Please read the following articles and the story of one lone woman, Dr Mitu Khurana, who has bought a case against the hospital, her husband and in- laws, who illegally found out the sex of her unborn twin baby girls and then tried to force her to have an abortion. She has been given the run around for four long years by the Indian judicial system.here is the website- http://www.mitukhurana.wordpress.com
http://crybelovedcountry.com/2012/01/the-face-of-gendercide/
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main51.asp?filename=Ne040212Lack.asp
Can anyone give a voice to the 50 million girls that have been silenced forever? All Dr. Khurana is asking for is a chance to go before an unbiased judge and be heard. Can we all give a voice to the 50 million murdered and raise the question with Indian officials as to why they are silently witnessing the elimination of a whole generation. The silence of the Indian officials tell the story and makes us wonder if Dr. Khurana and the 50 million dead baby girls will ever see justice done.
Please give those 50 million girls silenced forever, a voice. Please forward this to as many friends as possible.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/a-mothers-fight-to-save-her-daughters/
http://gendercide.epetitions.net/
[Reply]
Jonathan McLeod Reply:
February 22nd, 2012 at 12:44 pm
Dr. Khurana’s fight against social problem in India is not sufficient reason to change Canadian law.
Further, if you are so worried about the “50 million girls who have been silenced forever” are you equally concerned about all the ‘boys’ that abortion must have also “silenced forever”. If not, why not?
The CMAJ’s screed was primarily about abortion, not sexism.
[Reply]
February 22nd, 2012 @ 3:44 pm
This would be the epitome of paternalism. A male-dominated profession dictating to women: “we’re going to keep information from you for your own good. Don’t worry your little head, Missy.”
[Reply]
Jonathan McLeod Reply:
February 22nd, 2012 at 3:54 pm
Funny, I first read about this editorial on Facebook and replied (ironically!): “I’m pretty sure, Jess, if doctors just withheld this information from expectant mothers’ pretty little heads, all sexism and chauvinism would instantly vanish from society.”
Great minds, and all that.
[Reply]
February 22nd, 2012 @ 4:07 pm
My other thought is about the proposed blanket ban to all women, when the alleged problem exists within a clear and definable subset of the population.
To my dismay, courts recently upheld the legality of the Canadian Blood Services ban on homosexual males donating blood.
Along this line of thinking (where ‘evidence’ supposedly warrants it), it might be possible to ‘discriminate’ against these ethnic communities, and placing the 30-week info ban on them alone. I can see as possible (by analogy to the Blood Services case).
Scary.
[Reply]
February 25th, 2012 @ 1:54 am
Late to the party here, but:
“Reducing abortion in Canada is a wonderful goal …”
Why? What, in your view, would be desirable about reducing abortion in Canada?
[Reply]
Jonathan McLeod Reply:
February 26th, 2012 at 10:57 am
It’s my understanding (from talking to women who have had abortions), that it is a difficult and emotionally draining decision. It’s nice to avoid such things.
Further, if we assume that most abortions are a result of an unwanted pregnancy, an unviable pregnancy or a pregnancy that is dangerous to the mother. I’d love to see fewer of such pregnancies.
Finally, at the very least, it’s a use of resources in our health care system, and our system is over-burdened. Finding ways to reduce the occurrence of any medical procedure is probably a good thing.
Any other questions?
[Reply]
March 27th, 2012 @ 12:25 am
This happens in the USA as well. White, Hispanic, and Middle Eastern families abort daughters too. Not just Asians. Blacks, on the other hand, are the least likely to abort daugthers.
[Reply]