THE LATEST census figures from India show there are 7.1 million fewer girls than boys under the age of six. The disparity is caused by sex-selective abortion. A new public health report about the rise of sex-selective abortion of girls in India refers to the relative affluence and education of the women having the abortions. What the news accounts fail to mention is that the phenomenon accompanies a rise in feminism in the country.

Since feminism inhibits the commitment to motherhood in general and deflects the energies and focus of women toward money-making activity, it logically follows that it makes the abortion of girls more likely in a culture in which girls are considered more costly to the family.

According to Jim Yardley in The New York Times:

The government has enacted legislation intended to prevent parents from using ultrasound screenings or other technologies to decide whether to abort a girl. Yet despite such laws, the situation has not improved. Few medical practitioners who violated the law have been prosecuted, while regulation of private health care providers is very limited.

India is similar to many Asian countries in that many families prefer boys. In Hindu funeral rituals, only males, preferably a son of the deceased, may perform last rites; sons also usually inherit property (while daughters are married into other families) and carry on the family name. A cultural preference for sons is also common among many Indian Muslims.

Dr. Prabhat Jha, a lead author of the study, noted that the use of sex-selective abortions expanded throughout the country as the use of ultrasound equipment became more widespread. Typically, women from wealthier, better-educated families are more likely to undergo an ultrasound, Mr. Jha said, and researchers found that these families are far more likely to abort a girl if the firstborn is a daughter.

“This is really a phenomenon of the educated and the wealthy that we are seeing in India,” said Mr. Jha, director of the Center for Global Health Research at the University of Toronto.

                                            — Comments —

Jeff W. writes:

Abortion is customarily defended with money-centered arguments: the mother could not afford the baby, or the baby would get in the way of the mother’s money-making activities.

After 40 million abortions in the U.S. since 1973, then, it is interesting to note that present-day Americans are much poorer than 1973 Americans, and are on track to become much poorer still.

Modern godless Americans think they can grow wealthy through their own efforts, through modern scientific production techniques and through abortions. They do not understand God’s economy. “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire” (Matthew 7:19). Perhaps they will someday learn that people do not prosper in any way through having abortions.

Laura writes:

That’s a very important point. When a culture no longer affirms life, it turns in on itself and fails to prosper in the long run. The Roman Empire as it waned experienced this resistance to bearing children. 

James P. writes:

That reminds me of this revolting story from Elle magazine. The story describes pathologically narcissistic American women who abort normal, healthy male fetuses for no other reason than they want a girl. (The mothers suffer from “gender disappointment”, you see.) I don’t see this as any different from what happens in India. 

Vishal Mehra writes:

Things are going to get much worse in India, So far unrestricted abortion is permitted up to 20 weeks but the feminists, taking inspiration from US, want US-style abortion upto full term,

There is no organized opposition to it here except by Muslim clergy, the Ulema. It was the Ulema that last year fought off a determined effort to decriminalize homosexual relations through judicial means.

Hinduism in its modern form is non-dogmatic and has been reformed out of its original shape. Modern Hindus pride themselves on being tolerant but Hindu tolerance was not observed by British. Then the Hindus were as dogmatic as anybody.

Tolerance is anyway not really a virtue. Errors one must not abide, and people one must love.

Roger G. writes:

I keep reminding these people that “choose” is a transitive verb, and therefore requires a direct object, which they’re always omitting.

Please follow and like us: