163 million missing girls

I don’t often link to a book review that I or someone I know didn’t write but I read one this morning on a new book by Mara Hvistendahl. Her book, Unnatural Selection, is a look at the reality of sex-selection abortions that have led to 163,000,000 little girls being aborted by parents who wanted a son instead of a daughter. This is leading not only to an unnatural disparity in genders but a dangerous situation where a burgeoning population of men have no chance of marriage because there simply are not enough women to go around. Her book is reviewed at the Wall Street Journal and the review, The War Against Girls, is terribly detailed. What is truly puzzling is that while Ms. Hvistendahl is apparently all in favor of abortion, she has a problem with sex selection abortion. When you make “choice” your talisman, you have to take it all the way. Apparently Ms. Hvistendahl has a solution to sex selection abortion that seems awfully…anti-choice:

It is telling that Ms. Hvistendahl identifies a ban on abortion—and not the killing of tens of millions of unborn girls—as the "worst nightmare" of feminism. Even though 163 million girls have been denied life solely because of their gender, she can't help seeing the problem through the lens of an American political issue. Yet, while she is not willing to say that something has gone terribly wrong with the pro-abortion movement, she does recognize that two ideas are coming into conflict: "After decades of fighting for a woman's right to choose the outcome of her own pregnancy, it is difficult to turn around and point out that women are abusing that right."

Late in "Unnatural Selection," Ms. Hvistendahl makes some suggestions as to how such "abuse" might be curbed without infringing on a woman's right to have an abortion. In attempting to serve these two diametrically opposed ideas, she proposes banning the common practice of revealing the sex of a baby to parents during ultrasound testing. And not just ban it, but have rigorous government enforcement, which would include nationwide sting operations designed to send doctors and ultrasound techs and nurses who reveal the sex of babies to jail. Beyond the police surveillance of obstetrics facilities, doctors would be required to "investigate women carrying female fetuses more thoroughly" when they request abortions, in order to ensure that their motives are not illegal.

So apparently only certain, politically correct "choices" are permitted. You should be able to make a “choice” to abort a child for any or no reason at all but the information available to you should be limited so that certain factors are not brought into play when making your “choice”?

The horrific irony that one of the results of “women’s reproductive health care” is the wholesale slaughter of women in the womb in favor of men is almost unspeakable. Millions upon millions of women are killed, many in favor of baby boys, in the name of women’s “choice”.

I am not sure I am interested in buying Unnatural Selection given Ms. Hvistendahl’s advocacy for abortion but I definitely will be on the lookout for this book at the library. Just reading the review itself is heart-wrenching, not least because Ms. Hvistendahl has apparently so thoroughly bought into the propaganda of the abortion industry, not realizing that the problem she exposes is a natural and logical result of abortion on demand. If choice is the ultimate societal good, it makes perfect sense to weed out “undesirable” children via abortion, whether that means aborting a child because they might have Down’s Syndrome or be genetically predisposed toward certain diseases or aborting that child because you really wanted a child of a different gender, or one who will be taller, smarter, more athletic. Eugenics didn’t die out with the Third Reich, it is alive and well today right here in America.