Friday, October 11, 2013

Sex-selective abortion - one MP bravely raises the religion/race factor

Today, October 11, is International Day of the Girl Child. It was established by the UN in 2011 “to recognize girls’ rights and the unique challenges girls face around the world.” It is a “girl’s right” not to be deleted from existence just because she’s a girl. It is the “unique challenge” of girls in China and India to emerge from their mothers’ wombs alive, so that they may draw breath upon this earth and see the light of day.

For most of us, hearing “it’s a girl” is cause for enormous joy, happiness and celebration. But in many countries, this announcement is a death sentence. Experts estimate that up to 200 million women are missing in the world today due to gendercide, mostly in China and India.

This should not be a pro-choice or a pro-life issue. This is a human rights issue. Gendercide is violence against women and girls. No one supports the systematic elimination of females...
So writes Reggie Littlejohn at Women's Rights Without Frontiers. He goes on to talk about the emerging situation here in the UK, where it appears that sex-selective abortion (ie of girls) is contingent only upon the "good faith" decision of two GPs. As others have observed, there has been no chorus of liberal disapproval; no feminist outcry; and no outrage from the dedicated Human Rightists of how this vile practice advances the cause of gender equality and women's rights.

Littlejohn notes that very often gendercide is not a choice: "There is a strong correlation between sex-selective abortion and coercion. Crushing social, economic, political and personal pressures in cultures with a strong son preference trample women carrying girls. Women in these cultures hardly select their daughters for abortion. They are forced."

This was touched on briefly in this week's Westminster Hall debate on sex-selective abortion. Margot James asked Sir Edward Leigh: "Does he agree that whether that arises from the abortion of female fetuses or female infanticide, and whether it takes place in Bombay, Beijing or Birmingham, it is wrong?" Sir Edward, of course, agreed. But only Neil Parish MP was prepared to wade into the thorny religio-sociological reality that parts of Birmingham have effectively become Bombay, and so it's hardly surprising that alien cultural practices are permeating. It hasn't been widely reported (indeed, it hasn't been reported at all), so His Grace brings you Mr Parish's words:
Some lawyers and the CPS argue that practice is so lax that it is not possible to prosecute. What on earth is going on? I am not a lawyer, but I have some faith in the law of the land. However, why should people have faith in it, if shoddy practice allows perfectly healthy babies, of whatever sex, to be aborted? I shall be completely honest and open: I do not like abortion. I think it is carried out far too late, and I do not much like its being carried out at all. I accept that in exceptional circumstances, when there are very serious problems with a fetus, there could be an argument for it to be aborted; but not just because it does not suit someone’s lifestyle, religion or background.

I shall again say something a little controversial. Is it perhaps because the issue has something to do with race that we do not want to tackle it? Are we running scared because we live in this very politically correct world? Well, if that is the result of a politically correct country, I do not want to live in this role. This Parliament is about common-sense rules that are enforced. I am totally amazed and saddened that we must have this debate.(Hansard)
The abortion of baby girls because of the "religion or background" of the woman has scarcely been mentioned in the widespread reporting of the DPP's decision not to prosecute those GPs who approved the termination of  a baby girl simply because it was a girl. The ethnicity of the woman has not been disclosed: "not in the public interest" was the reason given. But GPs may very well reason and sympathetically approve the abortion of a baby girl if a woman were at risk of physical or mental injury at the hands of male members of her community, and those GPs would doubtless be acting "in good faith". If you were living daily with 'expressions' of oppressive misogyny and coercive patriarchy, the termination of the baby girl may well be a matter of life and death for you.

In some "religions or backgrounds", the pressure on wives to produce a male baby is crushing. With this sociological reality, what reasonable GP isn't going to approve "in good faith" the termination of a baby girl if the fate of the pregnant woman may otherwise be no better than that suffered by Anne Boleyn?


Blogger Youthpasta said...

It is, as ever, intriguing to note that Harriet Harperson and others who seek to vociferously defend the rights of females outside of the womb are completely silent when the chance to defend more females appears.
Their two-faced attitude disgusts me almost as much at this practice!

11 October 2013 at 11:13  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11 October 2013 at 11:15  
Blogger David B said...

"As others have observed, there has been no chorus of liberal disapproval; no feminist outcry; and no outrage from the dedicated Human Rightists of how this vile practice advances the cause of gender equality and women's rights."

Actually there hasn't been much of an outcry from anyone, but, if I remember correctly, when this issue first came up here a few weeks ago the article quoted claimed something to the effect of that it was an issue that united all sorts of unlikely people, including atheist pro-choice feminists, and I certainly remember saying how terrible this was in my comment here.

It is an issue that should be more in the limelight, and to that end I shall go and post on the issue next at my board.

But, as it is an issue that will unite people from many different, and often mutually exclusive, backgrounds and world views, gendercide, as you well term it, I suggest, would be an issue on which many atheist, pro-choice liberals will be similarly outraged, and perhaps one on which we could refrain from sniping at each other.

11 October 2013 at 11:16  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

The reason feminists and liberals are silent about female-specific abortion is because they believe that by allowing a single chink in the armour of a woman's 'right to choose' risks bringing the whole shaky edifice down to the ground.

Likewise, admitting that female-specific abortion is only practiced by recently arrived cultures/religions would risk collapsing the card stack that is cultural relativism or multiculturalism.

Mr Parrish is a brave man for confronting it so honestly, but he is not alone.

11 October 2013 at 11:16  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Can I suggest everyone writing to their MP to get a question asked in the Commons. I have also tweeted to various MPs to see if they might say something

11 October 2013 at 11:36  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Beautifully argued, Your Grace. To give an example of strong son preference, in the coercive patriarchy that is Saudi Arabia you’d hear a father saying that he had three children and two girls.

In A God Who Hates, the Syrian-born Wafa Sultan writes:

  My earliest memory of my mother is her story of how she chose my name. She told me she was not very happy at my arrival, and neither was my father, needless to say. My paternal uncle’s wife had already had two boys before she did. Under pressure from this calamity my mother was at a loss as to what name to give me. One morning my paternal uncle was passing by the veranda of our house when he saw my mother carrying me in her arms. He greeted her and asked: ‘Haven’t you chosen a name for her yet?’
  My mother replied: ‘Not yet. Do you have any suggestions?’
  My uncle said without hesitation: ‘Call her “Shit”, it’s the only name she deserves.’

11 October 2013 at 11:37  
Blogger IanCad said...

Reading further on the debate -- Thanks for the link YG--It is cheering to see that even the abortion addicted Diane Abbott agrees with him and stated thus quite clearly.
The tone of the discussion gives hope that the decision may not stand.
Representative government can work.

11 October 2013 at 11:49  
Blogger Ivan said...

Sex-selection is illegal in India, the country of origin of the Hindus, (it is almost always them) who procure these tawdry services. Often it is the matriarchal elements that put the pregnant girls through the wringer. It is an aspect of the sadomasochism inherent in Turd World cultures. I say this as an Indian myself.

11 October 2013 at 11:52  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Johnny Rottenborough said...

"Beautifully argued, Your Grace." Ernst wonderfully concurs with your sentiment.

One of his best for a while in a short but very powerful post.

E S Blofeld

11 October 2013 at 11:52  
Blogger Nick said...

"Is it perhaps because the issue has something to do with race that we do not want to tackle it?"

Spot on.

This is what most people know but are too afraid to say. I thank God that at least one MP has spoken out on this issue. It does indeed take courage, but sometimes moral outrage helps us overcome fear.

As to the GPs and surgeons who perorming these crimes to protect the women from her own culture, they are effectively accomplices. The whole thing is just sick, perverse, and vile beyond belief.

11 October 2013 at 12:01  
Blogger Nick said...

DAvid B said:

"Actually there hasn't been much of an outcry from anyone, "

David, that's hardly surprising given the lack of media coverage, and hence the lack of public debate. It's been a bit like the SSM issue in that respect.

11 October 2013 at 12:18  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Legal access to abortion allows an adult to revoke the obligations of parenthood prior to some arbitrary boundary. But certain reasons for revocation cause trouble because those reasons devalue certain classes of people. So prohibitions against gender selective abortion amount to a declaration that the woman may abort but not for the stated reason. She must find another. The purpose of the law is not to stop the abortion but to defend the value of the larger class. In truth, a law against gender selection abortion is unenforceable in a nation with free access to abortion for more socially acceptable reasons.


11 October 2013 at 12:57  
Blogger richardhj said...

There may be, probably is, some "racial element" in this decision.

But it is at least as much to do with the way abortion is carried out in this country. Most abortions are legally dubious, whether it be that some are carried out using paperwork pre-signed by doctors who have never even seen the woman never mind discussed it with her, or because they breech one of the other impotent "safeguards"

If they were to say that a woman can't use the fact that "I don't want a girl" as a reason then that throws doubt on many of the other reasons and suddenly most abortions are in danger of becoming illegal.

Leaving aside possibly a very small number of hard cases, you either believe that it's OK to murder unborn babies, or it's not. Those who are in favour of easily available abortion but are opposed to gender selection abortion are hypocrites.

11 October 2013 at 12:58  
Blogger Preacher said...

The Unborn are not just statistics or mistakes, to be rectified. They are human children.Not meat to be disposed of.
To those who are considering an abortion for any reason except exceptional circumstances I would say, Before you act, look into the face & eyes of an innocent child & consider what you are about to do.

11 October 2013 at 13:13  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

I request Your Grace’s permission to continue here a discussion that began on the previous thread, about the social and political environment in the sixties, out of which arose the Abortion Act of 1967. I was challenged for asserting:

The various limitations and restrictions imposed were a concession to the scruples of those who were insisting that abortion should never be anything more than a last resort. The concessions had to be made: they were the price of getting the bill through Parliament. But the underlying idea of the pro-choicers (though they weren't called that yet) was that any woman who wanted an abortion was entitled to it.

I have now found something that I believe will back up that assertion. It is an excerpt from a memoir, written twenty years after the event, by someone who was very much in the centre of the shift in social and moral attitudes that quite suddenly set new standards of acceptability:

[T]he party of reform thought society tough enough not to be endangered by abortion. To them the prevention of unwanted children strengthened rather than weakened the family. They favoured, as their opponents did not, equality between the sexes and tolerated sexual deviancy. They considered that individuals have the right to control fertility. The reformers were, however, outflanked by the small vocal group of feminist-marxists who proclaimed that sexual unhappiness had its origins in the capitalist system: [. . .] Above all, a woman’s body was her own to do with as she saw fit and no one should try to diminish this right.

Noel Annan, Our Age, Fontana, 1991 (paperback edtion), p. 176

Please note Lord Annan’s use of the verb “outflanked”.

11 October 2013 at 14:38  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Rambling Steve and
Mrs Proudie

Neil Parish (with a single “r”, it says here) is the MP for Tiverton & Honiton. That sounds as though it must be pretty much in the vicinity of Barsetshire-Southmoltonshire-Outer Wessex- Appleseed country. I’d never heard the name until now. How about you?

11 October 2013 at 14:51  
Blogger Nick said...

Ars Hendrik said:

"The reason feminists and liberals are silent about female-specific abortion is because they believe that by allowing a single chink in the armour of a woman's 'right to choose' risks bringing the whole shaky edifice down to the ground."

Good point. The feminists are now faced with a very unpleasant conundrum. They have boxed themselves into a corner on this one, and don't know how to deal with it; hence the silence from their ranks.

11 October 2013 at 14:59  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

Yes, because for many people abortion depends upon denying that the aborted foetus is properly human (it is nothing more than a 'non-viable' cluster of cells). To talk about its sex is to acknowledge its inherent humanity, which defeats the idea that it is less than human.

11 October 2013 at 15:05  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Goodness! Parish, now let me see...he could be one of the Toryton-in-the-Wet Parishes, very old family...something to do with Piers Gaviscon - I do believe they couldn't stomach him. Then again, he could be related to Sir Tristram Bendover, who's mother was a Parish-Byke...we shall have to investigate further.

11 October 2013 at 16:10  
Blogger Albert said...

Excellent post, which exposes the lie that this is not in the public's interest. If women from certain cultural and ethnic backgrounds are being effectively forced to have gender-selective abortions, then a prosecution is manifestly in the public interest.

And this of course, exposes yet anther contradiction in the abortionists' position:

We are told that abortion is all about the mother's rights and protecting her. But evidently not for these abortionists are not prosecuted.

Why aren't they prosecuted? Because to disallow gender-selective abortion would be to undermine the woman's right to choose, on which the whole thing rests. So some of these women's freedoms are being sacrificed to serve the freedom of others, to undermine the basis of their own freedom (since woman's right to choose entails the right sex discrimination). It's so contradictory, you'd think people's heads would hurt through trying to believe it all.

Meanwhile, the same people who tell us we must look after the environment for the sake of children yet unborn, happily abort their own children yet unborn. People claim to submit to the golden rule - do not do to others what you would not want done to yourself - while supporting abortion even though they could not want abortion to have been done to them.

Pro-abortionists are either wicked or stupid.

11 October 2013 at 16:22  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
I am uncertain as to your meaning when your conclusion was;
With this sociological reality, what reasonable GP isn't going to approve "in good faith" the termination of a baby girl if the fate of the pregnant woman may otherwise be no better than that suffered by Anne Boleyn?
Are you suggesting that because of the fear from the woman's society, GP's will endorse the termination? Is this not unacceptable?

11 October 2013 at 16:24  
Blogger Jay Bee said...

I remember back in the 50's being appalled by stories of missionaries in China concerning the ghastly practice of female infanticide and their efforts to rescue abandoned newborns. Now we have this undercover version of it over here. One where there is no hope of survival. More rotten imported fruit from the multiculti orchard.

With no curbs on rampant multiculturalism the nations cease to be cohesive and fragment into enclaves with different worldviews, values and objectives. Multiculturalism has failed not only in Britain but also across the whole of Europe and beyond. Both Cameron and Merkel have said so. Many immigrants are not integrating into Western society; on the contrary, they do everything to lead a segregated lifestyle and establish closed communities with their own rules. This imported vice of gendercide is a tragic example of how those immigrants who will not integrate, abuse medical facilities that the Western countries provide, to carry on life according to their own laws, beliefs and customs.

We need a political earthquake to stand any chance reversing the tide of degradation.

11 October 2013 at 16:36  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

The only way to stop gender selective abortion is to stop abortion.

Liberals and feminists realise this as they are not stupid.

That is why they are silent


You think they wouldn't condone murder, born or unborn if ideology demands it?


11 October 2013 at 16:58  
Blogger Nick said...

At the Nuremburg trials we were hanging those who had commited all kinds of human butchery. Cold-blooded murder of men, women and children in the most callous of ways. The West was horrified and demanded harsh justice.

The plague of infanticide that infests this nation, strangely, does not provoke the same kind of horror and outrage. It happens silently and clinically behind closed operating theatre doors, and we are told euphemistically that is all fine and just part of "family-planning".

I wonder if members of the public were made to watch a late-term foetus being slaughtered in the womb whether it would arouse their dull consciences. Television broadcasters are happy to show all kinds of intimate human activities including birth, operations, and even the moment of death. Why don't they televise abortions? Is it because a part of their conscience still recognises that this is basically murder?

11 October 2013 at 16:59  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Apparently according to our "brothers and sisters in Christ" in the Episcopal Church

Abortion is a blessing.

So it is a blessing?

Perhaps we just need more of it then?


11 October 2013 at 17:11  
Blogger Jay Bee said...


Wickedness arrays itself in fair garments and imitates the language of holiness. (C H Spurgeon)

11 October 2013 at 17:31  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

One suspects this is tearing our feminist sisters heart’s apart. Their very own are being selectively culled and yet they dare not issue a squeak in objection lest their rotten edifice crash down.

Well done that Ars Hendrick, this man posts in your wake...

11 October 2013 at 17:57  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Well said Neil Parish and a great article from YG

Asian women living in Britain who are forced to or want to abort a girl should not be allowed to, simple as that. And if they tell the Dr that they will be punished by their menfolk and families then the Dr can report this to the police who can arrest the family members who are doing the oppressing and threatening, charge the primitives with threatening behaviour and intent to cause injury or whatever the pregnant woman has said will happen to her if she brings a girl into the family.

Yes it will cost money, manpower and more effort to do this, but our governments have allowed all this rabble into Britain to destroy what was once a civilised British culture.
Or send her and her brood to an Asain country to live.

Of course with all this stupid equality, feminists are not barking out against this is because they can then have the right to abort a boy if it doesn't suit their preference or lifestyles.
Under the right to choose.

11 October 2013 at 21:16  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Big problem Marie. You see, it has been rammed down our throats that sub continent immigration is the greatest thing. So it follows that their delightful ways of doing things must be respected. Can you see the problem. Nobody is going to say the emperor is naked...

11 October 2013 at 21:56  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Peter Ould makes an excellent point on this issue in his blog:

11 October 2013 at 22:32  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Phil Roberts at 17:11

Thank you for that link to Damian Thompson's blog at the Tele. I would have missed it otherwise. Amazing, staggering. It's like a gross caricature ... but it's real.

11 October 2013 at 22:48  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Marie1797 (21:16)—Doctor reports family to police, police arrest family, woman breathes easy, case closed. That’s what ought to happen, and it used to happen before we became a multicultural society and the police began to neglect law enforcement in favour of staying on the right side of the Muslim community. These days, a doctor who reported such a matter could well find himself being threatened and/or facing charges of racial and religious hatred.

11 October 2013 at 23:14  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Johnny R
It's crazy isn't it, multiculturalism = a chaotic society. It's as if everything sensible has been tipped on its head, this has been done deliberately and on purpose.

And as Peter Ould's article states why not abort a baby that isn't of the race one would want if one has doubt about who the father is?

11 October 2013 at 23:33  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Marie1797 (23:33)—As Jay Bee says (16:36), a political earthquake is needed. But it isn’t only the politicians who are agin us. His Grace’s least favourite political party, the BNP, has just held its annual conference. I watched an excerpt from one session today. After two councillors had spoken about the consequences of distributing a party leaflet—dawn raids by armed police and an upcoming trial—members of the audience recounted their own experiences of police harassment. Doors are smashed in; computers and phones that are seized during searches are returned broken beyond repair; computers that are returned in working order have the hard drive wiped, etc. If you stand up for the British way of life, this is the treatment you get from the police.

12 October 2013 at 00:18  
Blogger Roy said...

I doubt if any of our female MPs are happy with the fact that baby girls are more likely to be aborted than boys.
Even if they have so far kept quite about it those who want unrestricted access to abortion probably feel very uncomfortable about sex-selective abortion.

However, suppose that there was a significant increase (at least among European women) of women who did not want boys and there was a corresponding increase in the number of boys being aborted so that the sexes balanced out.

Wouldn't that solve the dilemma of the "pro-choice" and "equalities" people?

12 October 2013 at 09:42  
Blogger non mouse said...

Oh my goodness, Your Grace. This is so yesterday!

Sophisticated multi-culti, de-genderized, non-racial, humanists need not keep repeating these same-old same-old arguments. Not now they can avail themselves of modern technology and eliminate the primitive process of conception and parturition!

A few test tubes and battery farms are all that's necessary for selection of appropriate social participants.

That way pornography and obscene behaviour can take their proper place as entertainment. Then lower order males won't have responsibility for rutting activities, and females won't be single mothers holding babies. And politicians can decide how many ova/spermatozoa of what race, gender, and social class doctors should produce; and educators/social workers can raise them into the acceptable ideological preference.

Our esteemed masters really must set that Huxley-Handbook up on the intertubes.

12 October 2013 at 12:07  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older