Next we will be discussing the merits of right to life in general for one demographic over another.
Two examples follow:
Choosing to eliminate unwanted daughters
By Jeff Jacoby
Globe Columnist / April 6, 2008
THE UNFETTERED "right to choose" is a progressive value, we are instructed by the abortion lobby - one indispensable to the empowerment of women. But a new study in PNAS (the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) prompts an awkward question: How exactly are American women empowered when abortion is deployed to prevent the existence of American girls?
Population experts have documented for years the use of abortion for sex selection in regions of the world where sons are more highly prized than daughters.
The problem is particularly acute in Asia, and especially in China and India, the world's two largest countries.
The natural sex ratio at birth is slightly male-biased at roughly 1.05-to-1, meaning that about 105 boys are born for every 100 girls. But in China the current ratio at birth is about 120 boys per 100 girls - and in more prosperous parts of the country, such as Guangdong and Hainan, the imbalance has reached an even more lopsided 135-to-100.
In India, census data from 2001 show that among children younger than 6, there are just 927 girls per 1,000 boys. There too, the greater the prosperity, the greater the discrepancy: In the high-income state of Punjab, notes Joseph D'Agostino of the Population Research Institute, there are only 793 girls for every 1,000 boys. He cites a report by UNICEF, which calculates that "7,000 fewer girls are now born in India each day than nature would dictate, and 10 million have been killed during pregnancy or just after in the past 20 years."
There is nothing new about the high cultural premium placed on sons in developing countries. What is relatively new is easy access to cheap ultrasound scans for determining the sex of an unborn child, and the availability of inexpensive abortions for parents who don't want a baby of the "wrong" sex.
Consider Vietnam, where a decade ago the sex ratio of newborns was a normal 1.04-to-1. Today, with the rise of ultrasound and abortion clinics, the number of newborn males has surged ahead of females.
"Vietnamese women who find they are carrying an unwanted female baby often head immediately to an abortion clinic," the Straits Times of Singapore reported last fall. "A walk-in abortion at a state hospital can be performed for $10, and at private clinics for about $20."
Most Americans rightly regard sex-selective abortions as odious; in a 2006 Zogby poll, an overwhelming 86 percent of Americans agreed that such abortions should be illegal. But they're not illegal - and as economists Douglas Almond and Lena Edlund indicate in the latest issue of PNAS, they are now occurring in the United States, too.
Almond and Edlund examined the ratio of boys to girls among US children born to Chinese, Korean, and Indian parents. For the first children of these Asian-American families, the sex ratio was the normal 1.05-to-1. But when the first baby is a girl, the odds of the second being a boy rose to 1.17-to-1. After two sisters, the likelihood of the third being a son leaped to 1.51-to-1. This is clear "evidence of sex selection, most likely at the prenatal stage," the authors write. Prenatal sex tests for pregnant women are now available earlier, more cheaply, and more conveniently than ever, "raising the prospect of sex selection becoming more widely practiced in the near future."
The destruction of unwanted daughters is appalling everywhere, but at least in places like India and China parents may have rational reasons for preferring a son. In China, for example, daughters routinely join their husbands' families and parents rely on sons to take care of them as they age. Facing intense government pressure to have no more than one or two children, many parents resort to sex-selective abortion.
But nothing can excuse such abortions in the United States - nothing except the theology of "choice," which elevates the right to an abortion above all other considerations. You don't have to be a feminist to know that being a girl is not a birth defect, or to be horrified by a practice that lethally reinforces the most benighted forms of sexual discrimination. For what kind of feminist would it be who could contemplate the use of abortion to eliminate ever-greater numbers of girls, and not cry out in horror?
Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jacoby@globe.com.
© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.
boston.com
Down syndrome a modern-day death sentence
By Joseph A. Cannon
Deseret News
Published: Sunday, Feb. 15, 2009 2:01 a.m. MST
•
Claire will never read these words. But at least she is alive and brings joy to her many friends and family members. You see, Claire is a survivor. She survived one of the most ruthlessly effective extermination programs in modern times.
Claire has Down syndrome.
Most of her Down syndrome brothers and sisters never got to be born. In the United States, more than 90 percent of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted. (In some other countries this number reaches 95 percent.) But apparently this isn't enough for those who would eradicate these defective persons. The problem is that the current methods for diagnosing the Down defect are ultrasound, biochemical exams or amniocentesis. But amniocentesis is expensive, invasive and potentially harmful to mothers and ultrasound may not be accurate.
Not to worry, Lenetix, a diagnostic technology company, has developed a new maternal blood test for the detection of Down syndrome and other chromosomal abnormalities. With no irony, Lenetix CEO Leonard H. Kellner tells us "we take deep pride in the technology we have developed because it has the potential to impact the lives of millions of women and their unborn children." Lenetix medical director, Steve Brown, M.D., tells us that "pregnant women and their physicians are clamoring for an improved, noninvasive prenatal test because they fear the risks of amniocentesis."
Sounds wonderful, like describing a new life-saving wonder drug or technology. But the sad, stark fact, well-known to anyone in this field, is that virtually every diagnosis of Down syndrome lends to the abortion of that unborn child. This is eugenics with a vengeance.
While the folks at Lenetix may simply be doing their best to advance science, other voices are more sinister when it comes to aborting children with Down syndrome.
"Like many," notes Libertarian commentator Nicholas Provenzo, "I am troubled by the implications of . . . Sarah Palin's decision to knowingly give birth to a child disabled with Down syndrome. Given that Palin's decision is being celebrated in some quarters, it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome." This is necessary, Provenzo informs us, "because a person afflicted with Down syndrome is only capable of being marginally productive."
Dr. Rahul K. Parikh, writing in Salon.com, takes a slightly more compassionate approach. While "greatly" admiring Palin's decision to "knowingly" give birth to a child with Down syndrome, it is critical that her decision not be imposed on other women. Parikh comes down hard on "rabid anti-choice activists who have called [aborting Down syndrome children] eugenics via medicine." Yet it is hard to see how this isn't "eugenics via medicine."
George Will defines "the pernicious quest for a disability-free society" as "respectable eugenics."
We are now quickly sliding down the slippery slope. What about people who are only "marginally productive" after they are born or when they get old? Are their lives worth preserving? And what does "marginally productive" mean anyway? In the literature "marginally productive" very often edges into "merely inconvenient."
In case you think these are red herring questions, hear Princeton professor Peter Singer. "Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all. That doesn't mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do." Not because there is anything inherently wrong with killing an infant but because "to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to its parents."
The ease with which we disregard the idea of life in its beginning and how we increasingly diminish restraints on voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide as life winds down, illuminates how far we have fallen from our founder's declaration that we are endowed by our Creator with the unalienable right of life.
deseretnews.com |
