It is well known and not disputed that, for social, cultural and economic reasons, parents in Asia use abortion as a means to eliminate unwanted female children in favor of sons. New research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and reported by Jeff Jacoby in The Boston Globe ("Choosing to eliminate unwanted daughters," April 6, 2008) shows that this disturbing trend is not limited to other continents.
The researchers uncovered that the ratio of male to female births in Korean-, Chinese- and Indian-American families increased significantly when the eldest children were girls. In other words, when the first one or two children in a family were female, the next child is considerably more likely to be a son. The blunt conclusion of the researchers was that "the found deviation in favor of sons [is] evidence of sex selection, most likely at the prenatal stage." That is, what the researchers call "sex-selective abortion" is being employed as a means of eliminating unwanted daughters.
It is important to note here that this is not a racial or ethnic issue. That the research focuses on Asian-American families is incidental to the real issue at hand: that the right to choose is prioritized above all others, which Jacoby calls the "theology of choice."
And so we are faced with a surprising and unpalatable fact: Girls in the United States are being killed before birth because they are female. Where is the feminist outrage? When Congress takes steps to ban the barbaric procedure known as partial-birth abortion, in which the skulls of partially delivered babies are punctured and their brains are vacuumed out, the pro-choice feminist establishment marches on Washington, D.C., crying misogyny and discrimination. When it is revealed that some American parents are killing their daughters because they prefer to have sons, there is nothing but the cold hypocrisy of silence.
The problem is that ideological consistency to the "theology of choice" demands this silence. When the right to choose is elevated over the right to life, and abortion is within the impenetrable sphere of individual privacy, then such abortions must be accepted, even embraced, as the ultimate expression of women's liberty. The American pro-choice establishment cannot condemn sex-selective abortion without undermining the preeminence of choice; a woman's right to choose abortion, even for the sole reason to eliminate an unwanted daughter, is inviolable. We are faced with the most vicious sexual discrimination being practiced in this country today. Yet these unborn American girls are left without a champion to defend them, as their plight is not politically conducive to the pro-choice and feminist establishments.
Some would argue that we need only pass a law banning abortions on the basis of sex, and the issue would disappear. Not only would such a law based on intent be unenforceable, it would cut to the heart of the pro-choice ethos. Legal doubts about the preeminence of choice on the hierarchy of civil liberties could only lead to greater abortion restrictions; the right must be all-encompassing or its existence is in peril.
But most significantly, such a law would not treat the fundamental problem, the root from which such disrespect for human life originates: the "theology of choice." It is interesting to note that, as recently as 1990, the phenomenon of American sex-selective abortion had not yet begun. How have we arrived at this point? The trend toward cheaper and more efficient prenatal testing has accelerated the progression of sex-selective abortion, but we must look to the entrenchment of "choice" in our national consciousness for the ultimate impetus. We can furthermore expect that the phenomenon of sex- and other eugenics-based abortions will continue to increase, for the "theology of choice" can recognize no limit to acceptable abortions without undermining its very existence. We must ask ourselves: How long until we begin "selecting" against other ostensibly undesirable traits in our unborn children?
Thousands of American girls have been deprived of the right to life because of their sex. Without it, they will never be able to exercise their right to vote, their right to equal education at universities like Princeton, their right to work in a profession of their choosing, their right to marry, their right to divorce, their own right to choose. Is this the America that feminists have envisioned? Is this ultimate conclusion of the "theology of choice" acceptable to the pro-choice establishment? For the sake of consistency, the answer must be yes. For the sake of this nation, I pray that the answer is no.
Brandon McGinley is a sophomore from Pittsburgh, Pa. He can be reached at bmcginle@princeton.edu.
Read More
Why can’t lecturers win the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching?
Jerry ZhuLet’s acknowledge those who make “boutique teaching” possible, those who work tirelessly to make our rigorous curricula more accessible, and those who dedicate their time to advising and guiding us through all the challenges we face at this University. Lecturers should be eligible for the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching.
Let’s acknowledge those who make “boutique teaching” possible, those who work tirelessly to make our rigorous curricula more accessible, and those who dedicate their time to advising and guiding us through all the challenges we face at this University. Lecturers should be eligible for the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching.
Princeton’s administration of justice is Trumpian
Frances BroganThe disparity between the University’s approach to Giberson and its approach to pro-Palestinian protestors reflects a concerning trend of appeasing an increasingly emboldened right rather than resisting the threat it poses to academic freedom and the wellbeing of Princeton students.
Secular Opening Exercises? Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water
Frank StrasburgerThe secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
The secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
