Laurie Penny

Pop culture and radical politics with a feminist twist

What value do you place on the life of a missing woman?

The selective abortion of female foetuses tends to reflect the esteem in which women are held in society.

By Laurie Penny Published 22 September 2011 13:42

If the words "feminist thought exercise" don't make you moist with anticipation of breathless minutes of fun, I don't know what you're doing reading this column. However, in the event that complex problems of gender and human rights don't of themselves tickle your interest glands, consider this: all over the world, from eastern Europe to India, millions of baby girls are missing.

There is a gap in the census. It howls with the ghosts of girl-children who died young, or who never lived -- tens of millions of potential human beings, neglected to death, murdered at birth or (in increasing numbers) terminated when an ultrasound scan showed that a woman was due to come into the world.

So here's a feminist thought exercise for you. The Council of Europe has just passed a draft resolution whereby expectant mothers across the EU member states might be forbidden from knowing the gender of their unborn child. If the resolution is agreed and passed into law, doctors in the UK and 26 other countries would be strongly encouraged, if not strictly obliged, to refuse parents prior knowledge of whether their baby will be a boy or a girl. The stated purpose of this resolution is to prevent the selective abortion of female foetuses, which, experts claim, has become a trend in several of the former Soviet states.

Chance to live

The word campaigners are using for this trend is "gendercide". Over 20 years ago, the economist Amartya Sen estimated the number of "missing" women -- potential adult females aborted, killed in infancy, or simply denied vital food and medical resources -- at 100 million. That figure is now undoubtedly higher. In China, where the one-child policy conspires with a traditional, sexist preference for sons to make many families desperate for a baby boy, the male-female ratio for children born in the late 1980s is 108 boys to 100 girls. For the generation born in the early 2000s, the ratio is 124:100, and it is an indictment on the global press that the most commented-on consequence of this population shift is the millions of young men in China, northern India and elsewhere who are unable to find brides.

The selective abortion of female foetuses tends to reflect the esteem in which women are held in society. In cultures where girls are barred from education, prevented from inheriting property and valued only as wives and mothers, pre-birth sex selection is on the rise.

The Council of Europe is not alone in considering a crackdown on reproductive freedom as a response to this crisis, though its powers are limited as black-market gender testing is widely available. Moreover, many of those who believe in a woman's right to choose say that it is unethical to deny any woman knowledge about the pregnancy she is carrying. This month, Colchester Hospital foundation reversed its policy of refusing to give out such information after a pregnant woman campaigned to know the sex of her foetus.

Here, then, is the dilemma. What do you do about all those missing women? Do you pass yet another law interfering with women's right to know and make decisions about their own pregnancies to the fullest extent that modern technology allows? Or do you permit the disappearance of thousands more women from history? There is a solution, and it comes from South Korea.

In the 1990s, South Korea had a sex ratio similar to China's but the male-female birth rate is now nearly normal, not because of medical restrictions but because of a change in culture. Better education of girls, equal rights legislation and more participation by women in public life made prejudice against female children seem outdated, according to a recent report by the Economist.

The history of human civilisation is a history of missing women. It is a story of women who never got the chance to live, even if they did make it to adulthood -- women deprived of education, barred from public life, suffering and dying in childbirth, shut up in the home, sold into slavery, perceived only as drudges and sex receptacles and dispensable factories for the production of sons.

In a world where females are still judged as inferior, even before birth, it is not sufficient to legislate so that enough girls are born. If you want to change the world, you have to value those girls when they arrive.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

More from Laurie Penny

78 comments

Thu, 2011-09-22 16:58 — Kieron Ross (not verified)

To the above comment; Men have every right, just as women do to discuss the issue of abortion, whether or not they agree with her views and/or your views. It's women like you who cause all the problems when someone brings up the topic of abortion, and complains that it's no man's business. Well sorry to tell you but there ain't no such thing as immaculate conception, a man was involved at some point, either directly or indirectly, and so has every right to discuss the topic, no matter there view.

Thu, 2011-09-22 17:02 — Stuart Eels (not verified)

Julian Morrison

How reasoned an arguement you put forward, the woman wouldn't have to make the decision if a man hadn't been involved in the earlier process.

I agree so much with David, this article is insult because it's only weeks after Laurie Penny was advocating the totally different opinion!

Tue, 2011-09-27 23:09 — Language Game (not verified)

Sorry I was not clear, I didn't mean it is not a subject that you can get emotional about - I mean you are letting emotion run your argument. You are simply not listening to what people say and you are accusing people of things they have not said and name calling.

I should never have had to clarify.. the whole point of the clarification was to point out the thing you accused me of and called me a misogynist had never ever been said.

If I said you are a Nazi who believes in the death penalty then I think you might take time to point out that this is a false accusation and has nothing to do with anything you said. It would just be a diversion tactic on my part and show a lack of depth to my logic.

Thu, 2011-09-22 17:30 — Libby Smith (not verified)

I cannot make my mind up on abortion. The Catholic side of me hates it, but my progressive side tells me different.

Should anyone have the right to end anothers life, even if it is inside her womb and contains matter from her own genepool?

When does a lifeform have rights, not legal rights, but human rights?

Its a tough question i dont think anybody truly knows the answer about.

What are your thoughts?

Thu, 2011-09-22 18:03 — David (not verified)

@ C Baker

'Perhaps men are hoping for male only societies'

As a man, I can assure you that this isn't the case.

Thu, 2011-09-22 18:12 — sean drew (not verified)

if hipocrocy was an olympic sport then miss penny would be nailed on for the gold medal in 2012.

Thu, 2011-09-22 18:34 — Roger Mortimer-Smith (not verified)

Julian Morrison -

Neither presumably do you have a uterus, but since it's not the organ that thinking is done with, that doesn't seem to have much bearing on whether one can or should comment on this issue.

And I think it's pretty relevant to point out that Penny and her ilk have always argued for casual abortion ie with no requirement other than the mother's desire to do it. If she now finds that some people are having abortions for reasons she disapproves of, the words "hoist" and "petard" come to mind. Funny thing about people having free choice - they'll sometimes make choices you wouldn't.

Oh, and what happened the idea that abortion isn't murder, and only bible-thumping right wingers would say it was? Now apparently it's not just mere murder but "gendercide", at least when it's being done to a group of people that Penny approves of.

Wed, 2011-09-28 00:00 — Yonmei

"the whole point of the clarification was to point out the thing you accused me of and called me a misogynist had never ever been said. "

You had identified yourself as prolife and had viciously attacked women who have abortions. This made you sound like the worst kind of prolifer.

Now you've come out and admitted you're not a prolifer, you're actually pro-choice.

But if you go around trying to talk like a Nazi and proclaiming your belief in the death penalty, don't act shocked when someone assumes you actually are a killer Nazi, rather than just a harmless dweeb who likes to sound like one.

Thu, 2011-09-22 18:45 — Yonmei

The perils of patriarchy: the hypocrisy of men who had great difficulty finding eligible women to marry, nonetheless demanding expensive dowries from the brides' family and encouraging the sex-selective abortion of daughters because their husbands will demand dowries in turn.

The perils of patriarchy: Men who think they have the right to control the bodies of women to force them to produce babies, are angry when in cultures where women have legal equal rights, women have only as many children as they want.

Valuing women's sexual autonomy equally with men ultimately leads to the fewest abortions. Pro-lifers demonstrate how little they really care about reducing the number of abortions, and how much they care about owning and controlling women, whenever they fulminate against a woman's right to choose.

If hypocrisy were an Olympic sport, these men - the dowry-demanders of India, the infestation of pro-lifers - they would be so far ahead that no one else would even be seen by the selection committee.

Thu, 2011-09-22 18:49 — bobhunds (not verified)

that is a terrible practice
http://www.bobhunds.com

Fri, 2011-09-23 22:30 — Roger Mortimer-Smith (not verified)

Yonmei - in fact you seem to have paid as little attention to what Andrew said as what I said. Where does he express any contempt for women, or say that a culture that devalues them is OK? He simply points out that Penny's position is inconsistent - either the foetus isn't human and can be casually disposed of, or it is and has the right to life. Penny seems to want it both ways, depending on which example of abortion she's talking about. Surely this makes her the sexist, since her view on abortion depends on the gender of the foetus being aborted.

As for my own post, I don't know on what basis you assume I'm not in favour of sex education, readily available contraception and so forth. I am - I just don't pretend that deciding not to have a child is the same as conceiving one out of thoughtlessness and then killing it.

Thu, 2011-09-22 18:51 — john woods (not verified)

Either a woman has a right to abort her feotus or she doesn't. If she does, then aborting it because it is female is morally no better or worse than aborting it for any other reason.

Fri, 2011-09-30 23:30 — Yonmei (not verified)

Andrew - So when you said "Sorry I simply don't get this" you were lying?

Oh wait -

"I simply think that if one supports the notion of abortion being a woman's right, that right applies across the board - whatever reasons she has are as good as any other."

No, you weren't. Like all prolifers misogynist - you really just don't get how ugly it is. I suppose because you can't *be* a prolifer unless you consider women as worthless as they do in the cultures which used to practice sex-selective infanticide and now practice sex-selective abortion.

So no wonder you "just don't get it". You share their views.

Thu, 2011-09-22 19:00 — Chris (not verified)

Articles like this make ME feel like a hypocrite for claiming right-wingers are hypocrites.

Way to alienate your own side there Penny. Nice work.

Fri, 2011-09-23 22:36 — Hugh Markey (not verified)

Ideally the state should decide on the gender of each child ensuing a balanced population as near as dammit.
China settled on the 'one child' per family without allowing for the randomness of nature once this policy was embarked upon. In addition, the Chinese population at large introduced a kind of male primogeniture.

The actuarial profession made a right haymes of life spans and pension plans in the West but the imbalance in China's demographic future was pretty obvious form the outset. With 40 million more male than female citizens Chinese women are certain to become more of a cherished possession in the future.

Whilst the Indian government has taken the usual laissez-faire stance in regard to its population, those Indian citizens who can afford it are happy to decide upon female genocide as a means to an end.
Doesn't anybody recall the old adage - "A daughter is a daughter for life; a son until he finds a wife!'
These little emperors and rajahs will certainly find it difficult to enjoy female companionship in adult life.
Reminds one of 'Original Sin.' Or the law of unintended consequences!

Solomon

Thu, 2011-09-22 19:52 — Dickie1

Children should be like Christmas presents: you should decide whether you want them based on who gave them to you (assuming you know). Obviously you know what the present is going to be in the broadest terms i.e. something you will have for a very long time and which you might not like - similar to a jumper with a reindeer on the front. The point is that just by feeling the parcel you can't be sure if it's a scarf, woolly hat and mittens, that you might actually want, or the dreaded jumper.

That is my initial reaction anyway. It is a tricky question.

Mon, 2011-09-26 23:55 — Yonmei

"Imagine if we said the same thing about Social Services in child protection"

But we won't, because child protection by Social Services does not entail using a woman's body against her will.

"You see the problem you just jump past is that people believe that the 'un-born' child is a human being with dignity"

I don't jump past it. I note that some people do not believe that a woman is a human being with dignity, and seek to force the use of her body against her will.

"It is not as simple as removing a toe nail. "

Neither is pregnancy and childbirth. Typically silly prolife analogy.

Tue, 2011-09-27 00:10 — Language Game (not verified)

Yonmei - do you change the context of everything anyone ever writes, ignoring the key points, before answering them?

Your comment about the toe nail analogy is completely redundant (and AGAIN shows ad hominem nature of every argument you enter) as the only point of the analogy is to show that you are simplifying the issue. It is not a complex analogy addressing the issue (I say it is NOT like removing a toe nail). Please unpack your use of the word 'silly', as it just looks like a lazy comeback.

Yet again you completely miss the point with the Social Services comment - I am using it to show that the motives are similar for those who do oppose abortion to those who would seek to protect children. I am not saying that the two are the same.

Your entire answer proved you DO jump past the problem mentioned. You seek to accuse anyone who disagrees with you as being oppressive, you shout down the other side of the argument with accusation - and you don't listen to or consider what people are saying before responding.

Sat, 2011-09-24 01:53 — Shouvik Datta (not verified)

This issue is related to education. Parts of India have a problem with the ratio of girls to boys born annually; itis no coincidence that the literacy levels and education of women in India also seriously lag that of men (especially poorer classes). In that respect, Laurie Penny is right. However, it should be said that there are attempts in India to have women better represented both in the Indian parliament, and at village level in local assemblies (or panchayats). Itis a question of how well women's voices are heard in the society.

Tue, 2011-09-27 01:09 — Yonmei

"do you change the context of everything anyone ever writes, ignoring the key points, before answering them? "

No, I never do that. Do you?

"Your comment about the toe nail analogy is completely redundant"

The toe nail analogy was completely and obviously redundant, and I suppose pointing that out was a redundancy of a redundancy.

"It is not a complex analogy addressing the issue (I say it is NOT like removing a toe nail). Please unpack your use of the word 'silly', as it just looks like a lazy comeback."

First of all, YOU should explain why you think that pregnancy is just like growing a toenail. That will be amusing, because it's such a silly idea, and it will clarify why you think it's sensible to compare ending a pregnancy with cutting a toenail.

"I am using it to show that the motives are similar for those who do oppose abortion to those who would seek to protect children"

The motives are in no way similar. People who oppose abortion want raped children to be forced through pregnancy and childbirth. People who oppose abortion don't want to *protect* children, they want to further abuse raped children.

"You seek to accuse anyone who disagrees with you as being oppressive"

Wow, you are supergood at jumping to conclusions! I note that people who oppose a woman's right to choose abortion are oppressers of women, misogynistic abusers. Yet you leap from that point to the silly idea that I "accuse" everyone I disagree with of this. No, silly, of course not. Can't you argue sensibly, even in defense of such wrongheaded ideas?

"and you don't listen to or consider what people are saying before responding."

I listen to and consider what people are saying, and then I respond thoughtfully, with regard to the obvious and direct implications of what they're advocating. The problem is, prolifers just don't like to think about the obvious and direct implications of what they're advocating...

Sat, 2011-09-24 02:39 — Dickie1

There seems on point.

Let's wait till the next series of Top-Gear is available in boxed-set form.

Bye bye tards

Wed, 2011-09-28 09:35 — Marissa (not verified)

Excellent points Yonmei. Had to laugh at poor old Karmar's jealous "way to influence people" remark. Awww, sadface.

And Language Game, if you are so sure you aren't a misogynist (are you sure? really?), then avoid trying so hard to paint yourself as one.

Tue, 2011-09-27 02:03 — Yonmei

And isn't it interesting that because the prolifers came along and they don't care a bit (as Andrew and then Roger pointed out) if a culture is so misogynistic as to practice sex-selective abortion.

All they care about is forcing women, and justifying their force in moral terms.

So instead of discussing how cultures could change to value daughters, we end up defending the basic human rights principle of abortion.

Sun, 2011-09-25 18:34 — Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley (not verified)

"If you want to change the world, you have to value those girls when they arrive."

Yes so let's celebrate the Saudis decision to give women the vote. Isn't it wonderful?

If anyone might understand the wider context of this seriously difficult subject, surely the women of Saudi as part of a modern democracy should be able to please help. About the world we really must improve things for women who otherwise can get lost.

Sat, 2011-09-24 09:52 — Mark (not verified)

You just know if 20 years Laurie will think what was that bollocks I used to write about.

Sat, 2012-02-25 17:13 — Taggart

I prefer the idea of preservation of life to choice. In the view of the people you accuse of being oppressors, you don't give a shit about the CHOICE of the baby. You still still still JUMP PAST the foundation of our debate, that pro-lifers believe the fetus is an unborn child. Stop ignoring that belief and then basing your arguments on that ignorance. http://www.furniture101.net/

Sat, 2011-09-24 10:37 — Yonmei

"Where does he express any contempt for women, or say that a culture that devalues them is OK?"

In his first sentence. He says "Sorry I simply don't get this." What contempt for women does someone have who "doesn't get" why selectively aborting female foetuses in order to have fewer daughters is (a) not okay and (b) a signifier of a culture that devalues women?

And what contempt for women do YOU have to have, Roger, to not see that?

"As for my own post, I don't know on what basis you assume I'm not in favour of sex education, readily available contraception and so forth."

Because you're sufficiently contemptuous of women's autonomy, as you make clear in the sentence that follows the one I quoted, to believe that once a woman is pregnant, it's OK to force her through pregnancy and childbirth against her will.

Fri, 2011-09-23 00:38 — stuart (not verified)

if every goverment in the world had women presidents and prime ministers,would the world be a better place to live in,,i say, here,here,(got that from listening to prime ministers questions) for sure it would,,i support hilary clinton or sarah palin to be the first american woman president in america at there next election..

Fri, 2011-09-23 01:20 — PrettyMurky (not verified)

To those accusing Ms Penny of hypocrisy:
Her solution was NOT to limit women's right to choose, but to educate away from the prejudices that lead to the 'bad' choices (abortion on gender grounds; rather than appropriateness of timing, inappropriateness of father, etc.).

To Stuart:
I'm all in favour of a bit of female domination in the right circumstances (usually kinky funtimes), and do think that women are perhaps better suited for executive positions. However it's worth noting that being power-hungry and/or retarded, are not exclusively male qualities.

Fri, 2011-09-23 01:28 — PrettyMurky (not verified)

Merrgh! That should have been 'inappropriateness of timing / father'

Fri, 2011-09-23 02:01 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

stuart, couldn't agree with you more with regards to the world being a better place if women were in charge. I mean look how much better Britain was under Magggie Thatcher.

Thu, 2011-09-29 14:37 — Andrew (not verified)

Hello all

I have just read Yonmei's various comments - with some surprise I may say.

I do not support sex selective abortion. In fact, as I thought I had made quite clear I do not support abortion at all, except as a bitter necessity in cases of medical emergency or in extreme cases such as for rape victims, etc.

I certainly do not support its use as a form of contraception or as a tool to sex select or eugenically manipulate the population.

I simply think that if one supports the notion of abortion being a woman's right, that right applies across the board - whatever reasons she has are as good as any other.

Therefore if she wants to abort a female foetus that is just as good as any other reason.

If the foetus is,as pro-choice activists frequently say, not a baby but a ball of cells, "blob" or whatever, what does it matter what gender it may have if the pregnancy goes to term?

It's not a baby and therefore cannot "die".

It would seem that Yonmei and others actually know its really a child, but want to dictate which ones get the death sentence.

Tue, 2011-09-27 13:01 — Language Game (not verified)

And you still don't get - using your sentence structure - that for the people you accuse of terrible motives that it looks like all you are concerned about is killing humans and justifying your decision with the word "choice". I prefer the idea of preservation of life to choice. In the view of the people you accuse of being oppressors, you don't give a shit about the CHOICE of the baby. You still still still JUMP PAST the foundation of our debate, that pro-lifers believe the foetus is an unborn child. Stop ignoring that belief and then basing your arguments on that ignorance.

This article is under the title "gendercide". If that is the case with abortion then surely the termination of both male and female foetuses in the UK is 'genocide'. And the selective abortion of the disabled (as in the UK) is eugenics.

So you take the illogical step that if someone is concerned about this murder in OUR OWN culture we are not concerned about the attitude towards women in others and are misogynistic. Why when anyone argues against a liberal do they jump to accusations that don't logically follow, change the subject and why use the term "prolifer" as an insult. There is nothing wrong with debating an important subject that relates to the article. You debate with me for several posts and then after a long while imply that I am a misogynist for debating this?

Fri, 2011-09-23 03:47 — stuart (not verified)

here,here, mr divine,i dont like swearing as a rule,but maggie was a right bastard of the highest order in power..what has followed her are no better,i only use the word bastard in the same context as the useless wimpy ex prime minister john major did as he was surrounded by them,and i feel the same..

Fri, 2011-09-23 04:36 — Ivan Miletitch

Well Ms Pennie can't really have it both ways can she ! One the one hand she is a supporter of abortion & on the other she laments the fact that many women will chose to abort a female foetus for whatever reason...
Another point... I read that The C.C is looking at possibly making it unlawful for doctors to reveal the sex of a foetus....lets be serious... I don't suspect this is a issue affecting the E.C generally speaking... As mentionned in the article, China of course & mostly muslim countries so, however well intentionned an EU ruling might be, it won't really make any difference!

Sun, 2011-09-25 23:05 — Thomas Devine

As an American, I was introduced to this issue back in the 1970's while reading science fiction magazines. Several authors, most of them male, explored the idea of what Western technologies used for non-Western cultural reasons might mean in terms of gender balance. These stories took a Feminist and Anti-Colonial stance valueing and respecting women and the world's many cultures. It's lovely to see that the British Leftist press has at long last caught up with American popular fiction on this problem. It only took you forty years.

Fri, 2011-09-23 09:57 — Roger Mortimer-Smith (not verified)

Yonmei -

"Pro-lifers demonstrate how little they really care about reducing the number of abortions, and how much they care about owning and controlling women, whenever they fulminate against a woman's right to choose."

And where is your evidence for that? Or is it that you can't argue against what pro-lifers actually say, so you have to resort to claiming that their motives aren't what they say they are?

Perhaps people need reminding that half of aborted foetuses will be female even in cases where gender isn't the reason for the abortion. (Personally I would care equally about injustice whether the victim was male or female, but I realise I'm talking to an audience of feminists here...) The abortion debate tends to be skewed by the fact that everyone taking part in it was, by definition, not aborted. If we were discussing, say, killing people on their 40th birthday if others deemed it convenient, I suspect people wouldn't be so gung ho for something that could happen to them.

Fri, 2011-09-23 10:05 — treborc

Lucky we had Blair and Brown to show us how the country should be run, Thatcher now looks like a moderate after those two.

This type of article has no real answer China has to many people, sadly women have been picked out to blame for having to many girls babies, men are not at faulty, which is obviously wrong scientist I'm sure could have a pill which would allow sperm to be male only.

Sat, 2011-09-24 17:22 — stick my oar in (not verified)

honestly, just hand over the 'reins of power' to lovely women everywhere, and let the good times roll

as long as they still let us lay down with them, i would have no problem with such a world whatsoever, indeed, i often dream of such a thing

AIBU?

Sat, 2011-09-24 17:24 — Hugh Markey (not verified)

We can't but feel sorry for Otto Von Bismark. Those piles. Admittedly, Otto was dissed by the German Royal Family and even went to the extent of spying on them. However, besides holding a toxic hatred of the British, Otto did introduce the foundations of a welfare state. No doubt under pressure from other political forces but still!
Metternich something of a ladies' man seems to owe his elevation in society to his first wife. A social climber dependent on his wife for status - well, not that unusual. We can think of certain men in British high social circles. 'Nuff said!
More to the point, Calvin lionised by Max Weber, seems to have been an early proponent of the planned family. "Behold, SONS are a gift of the Lord, the fruit of love is its the reward." A bit-one-sided but nevertheless but in Calvin's opinion a family should be restricted by its means. Calvin also stated that it would be as well for a couple to have no issue rather than a profusion of children fraught with tears and misery.
So why condemn the modern-day Chinese and Indian middle-class for aping Protestant Europe in restricting the number of children per family. Is there a difference between contraception and medical intervention for non-medical reasons.
Of course, the Catholic Church praised large families as they hoped it could triumph over other religions by sheer force of numbers. We suppose the same goes for Islam and Far Eastern religions.
Even then surplus European population had to be exported as squatters to other countries reclassified as colonies.
According to UN stats women do over 60% of the world's labour, not counting house-work.
Academically they also seem to do better than their male counterparts.
Nature also seems to have a bias towards womankind. Can you imagine what the world would be like with another half-billion females? Better!
And yet women are under-represented in every work-place and in every profession except child-rearing.
What's wrong with quotas. Public schooling is non-competitive and fees are the key to gaining entry - not academic ability, Name one girls' public school! We can name only one.

Mum's Boys

Sat, 2011-10-01 18:55 — Gerry Tierney (not verified)

What a mess of an article.

Sat, 2011-09-24 17:45 — Buckskins (not verified)

Mr D.

"I mean look how much better Britain was under Magggie Thatcher."

I would like to have seen her close the coal mines without looting Scottish oil. That little golden egg is well on the way to dry holes, Then what? Windmills right? Don who?

Cheers Mate.

Fri, 2011-09-23 11:20 — Yonmei

"And where is your evidence for that?"

People who care about reducing the number of abortions support policies which tend to ensure fewer women have unplanned pregnancies. For example, comprehensive sex education for all children, no "parental exemptions": free contraception and sexual health care: paid maternity and paternity leave guaranteed as of right. (And of course, as American prolifers in particular have to be reminded, universal healthcare, free at point of access.)

What we get instead from prolifers is invariably - as you neatly demonstrate - not any concern at all for preventing abortions, but anger that women who get pregnant and don't want a baby will have an abortion.

Of course the majority of women who have abortions already have children.

"If we were discussing, say, killing people on their 40th birthday if others deemed it convenient, I suspect people wouldn't be so gung ho for something that could happen to them."

Prolife men are quite gung-ho when they discuss making abortion illegal, despite the sixty thousand women a year that die because of illegal abortions - and the million women a year who die in pregnancy/childbirth related causes. So yeah - if you know it's not going to happen to you, Roger, you don't care who dies as a result of your campaigning. That's prolife.

Sat, 2011-09-24 18:52 — Fergus Pickering (not verified)

'ideally the stste should decide on the gender of each child'. Why stop there?Ideally the state should stop criminals and stupid people from breeding at all.

Fri, 2011-09-23 12:05 — Dave (not verified)

A very interesting point, and well written article.
I am not a pro-lifer, but i do believe in equality, and i agree with the proposed legislation, as it will guarantee the lives of many thousands of girls who will otherwise be aborted.

This is especially important when you look as future trends, with the advent of our multicultural society, incorporating many cultures and value systems that regard males as much more valuable then females.

Fri, 2011-09-23 12:22 — Awake!

i wonder how many little black babies we'd save in Africa who are already born if the EU spent half the budget it's spending on this issue on aid instead.
Ah yes of course, european life is worth so much more, and standards must be maintained here no matter the marginal rate of utility.
And the bonus is that middle class intellectuals can now reserve their angst for something else just as worthy, within Europe of course- Africans, well they're just sooooo different, AND they bring it on themselves what with letting flies wander all over their starving mouths...

Tue, 2011-09-27 16:26 — Yonmei

Prolifers want to make abortion illegal. They justify this by pretending they're concerned for fetal lives, talking up a clearly-fake concern for the dead babies.

70,000 women each year die because they couldn't get access to a safe, legal abortion. If prolifers win, that death rate will only get higher. And since with every woman who dies because prolifers rule in her country, a fetus dies too, it's pretty clear prolife concern for the fetal lives is completely bogus.

So, Language Game, it looks like all you are concerned about is killing humans and justifying your decision with the word "pro-life".

"you don't give a shit about the CHOICE of the baby."

Nor do you. As seen above. You don't care that a baby would (if given a CHOICE) rather have a living mother who got to have a safe legal abortion, than be orphaned at an early age because the mother couldn't get a safe abortion and so died of "prolife" values.

"If that is the case with abortion then surely the termination of both male and female foetuses in the UK is 'genocide'."

Only in the UK? So the termination of foetuses where abortion is illegal is just... prolife?

Tue, 2011-09-27 16:29 — Yonmei

"if someone is concerned about this murder in OUR OWN culture we are not concerned about the attitude towards women in others and are misogynistic. "

If you want to force women through pregnancy and childbirth against their will, and aren't concerned about forced abortions where women don't get to choose, then plainly, Language Game, you're misogynistic. So is Andrew. So is Roger. All of you have declared indifference to forced abortion of female foetuses and that you're for forced pregnancy and childbirth. And you don't care how many human beings die each year towards your goal. That's prolife.

Tue, 2011-09-27 16:57 — Mike Thomas (not verified)

So Laurie, you are in favour of abortion but not where one gender is preferable on cultural grounds?

You and whose army have a right to interject in the affairs of a sovereign albeit one that is a communist dictatorship?

So, let's not dress this up.

Do you think it is a good idea not to tell a Hindu or Sikh family in the UK the gender of their baby at 20 weeks?

Because they may prefer a boy to marry up and attract a huge dowry?

Because this has nothing to do with China and everything to do with dealing with a sensitive cultural issue in the UK.

So get off the pot Laurie and make this relevant to people in the UK.

Try contextualising it to include boring conventional white middle class people like us who got married and are having children and would just like to know and would never countenance such a heinous thing.

Mon, 2011-09-26 12:56 — Yonmei

Roger, that you take the practice of sex-selective abortion (or, prior to scans, female infanticide) so lightly, just as a "choice" people make who don't want daughters, says it all about what ugly prejudice you hold against women. That's prolife.

"Likewise, depending on the reason for the abortion, the foetus is either disposable without a second thought or its loss is a tragedy."

Why, yes. If you were capable for even a moment of thinking about pregnancy from a woman's point of view (I know: for someone as deeply misogynistic as you, this idea is clearly unthinkable!) then you could perceive that if a woman chooses to have an abortion because she does not wish to be pregnant, then having an abortion is a relief, not a tragedy. But if she has to have an abortion of a wanted pregnancy for external reasons - health, money, a misogynistic society that devalues daughters - that is a tragedy.

But to prolife misogynists, pregnancy isn't ever about the pregnant woman: she, as you make clear, is in your eyes just an object to be used, and her feelings and thoughts are as irrelevant to you as an animal's.

You see, I do pay attention to what prolifers say, Roger - and what they don't say. That it doesn't even occur to you that it's what the pregnant woman thinks/feels about her abortion that makes it a tragedy or a relief, is deeply indicative of how the prolifer mindset works.