|
|
Sounds of Feminist Silence
|
By Wanda Skowronska
(Life Lines/January-February2007)
What do feminists say when their supposed ally – the pro abortion doctor – kills women in great numbers? This is the stark reality of gender selection abortion both in China and India. Recently, the findings of the Chinese State Population and Family Planning Commission, reported that since the introduction of the one child policy three decades ago, there has arisen a striking gender imbalance in China. There are now generally 118 boys to 100 girls and in some regions 130 boys to 100 girls, making it virtually impossible for some men to marry.
|
Within 15 years, China will have over 30 million (some estimates say 40 million) more men than women of marriageable age – more than the entire population of Australia – men who will simply not be able to find wives – because of the high rate of ‘gendercide’ of female unborn children. Not addressing the morality of the issue, the Chinese report confines itself to projected threats to social stability, employment and the environment.
Report of China’s ongoing forced abortions and in particular abortions of female babies and abandonment of born girls has been persistently reported by Steve Mosher of the US Population research Institute – in newsletters, books and websites. But this subject has been met with strange and deafening silence from the bastions of feminism.
Not as well known, but equally as horrifying, are sex-selection abortions in India which have accounted for the deaths of at least 50 million female babies over the past 20 years. Publishing these figures in a rare article in the mainstream media and going on to discuss this politically incorrect subject, Louise Williams of the Sydney Morning Herald, January 2006, observed that this is ‘the most grossly distorted gender ratio since statistics were first recorded’. This young journalist was expressing some authentic dismay, as anyone naturally would, at what these horrifying statistics meant, but there has not been a word in the mainstream media from the feminista commentariat. In fact their silence on this subject is deafening. While feminists may argue passionately for ‘choice’, the reality is that Indians are indeed choosing to kill women at the rate of at least 500,000 a year and distortions similar to the Chinese gender imbalance have resulted. There is no choice for the female victims of sex selection abortions. US journalist, Jill Stanek, commented on WorldNetDaily: It would seem to be the greatest irony of abortion, that the foremost tool feminists say will facilities women’s equality with men is actually the foremost weapon used to kill them.
In traditional societies such as India, where sons are seen as assets and girls as liabilities due to the hefty dowries usually needed for marriage, the advent of medical tests such as amniocentesis and ultrasound over the last two decades has accelerated the abortion of female children. In post-modern Mengelian style in the west, such tests are used to detect children with Downs Syndrome or with other disabilities so the parents can ‘choose’ to abort their child. But in India (and China) being female is the principle ‘disability’ for which unborn children are killed. This has resulted in long harrowing searches for ‘someone to marry’ on the part of young Indian men who cannot find a bride. Some astounding consequences are that, for the first time in Indian history, certain of the caste and dowry requirement are even being put aside.
In the west, gendercide has multiple financial attractions. It is considered profitable as there is money to be made from aborted baby girls as they boost the stocks of eggs needed for in vitro fertilization and cloning research. Thus while abortion clinics make money from doing abortions, there is ever more money to be made by selling aborted baby girls for their eggs. ‘Harvesting’ them from adult females is more time consuming – this way an almost unlimited supply has become available. And while this global assault on the female population of the world proceeds, the feminist ‘sisters’ – especially their Western ones who have more access to the media – continue to say nothing of the missing 74 million women in all South Asia (according to a 2002 UNICEF report).
While the chattering classes are avoiding the issue, there has been vocal support for these baby victims from catholic bishops in India (who are supporting the fundamental right to life of these young girls more than anyone). For example, in the manner of Bishop von Galen (1878-1946) who was called the ‘lion of Munster’ for denouncing the Nazi regime in 1941, at great cost to his popularity and safety, Monsignor Oswald Gracias, President of India’s catholic Bishops’ Conference and the Archbishop of Agra, expressed his outrage at widespread abortion of girls. He said that the fact that such practices has apparently been outlawed in 1994, had not stopped them and he said publicly that it was ‘contemptible and condemnable…that females are chosen to be killed’.6 Again, what is interesting about this Indian gendercide is the whisper quiet silence of ‘social justice’ groups in western countries who are so preoccupied with inequalities in the third world. They and the feminista brigades of the west surely perhaps should be sending unceasing calls to end the discrimination, on the basis of gender in the killing of these young girls. However, with gendercide, the feminists are truly caught in a dilemma which shows up their avoidance of this issue which threatens the survival of women. If they ignore the sex selection deaths of their sisters, then they have to take on board their support for the killing of their own gender – whose killing in any circumstance other than abortion they would widely protest. Yet, if they protest the killing of the unborn baby girls, they lose their case for a “woman’s right to choose” abortion for any reason. But the stark reality facing them is that the “woman’s right to choose” could potentially result in the death of most girls, in fact the deaths of feminists themselves. If feminists support a ban on sex selection abortion then they have already been ensnared onto the pro life side and it seems easier to accept discrimination against unborn girls that to accept that. The continuing feminists’ sounds of silence testify to a moral failure to even face the issue, much less comment on it. If women’s rights groups cannot express a wish for their own sisterhood to survive, then what is the point of their existence? Political correctness and silence on the subject of gendercide here not only leads to contradictions but to the very elimination, even extinction of women themselves – the very group of victims the feminists sought to support. If ever political correctness had met its endgame, this is it.
|
|
|
| JOIN MAILING LIST |
 |
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| Letters to the Editor |
|
|
|
|
| Letters by Sr. Pilar |
|
|
|
|
| Love Life TV |
|
|
|
| MAGAZINE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
| HOT TOPICS |
|
|
|
|
|
| ANTI LIFE ISSUES |
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
