On Female Feticide

This morning I found a post on Metafilter concerning an editorial by interim Editor-in-Chief Rajendra Kale (PDF link) in the Canadian Medical Association Journal she edits, where she argues that sex-selective abortion should cease. Specifically Dr. Kale would like practitioners in Canada (and presumably elsewhere) to cease revealing the sex of the fetus to the woman who's carrying it in time for a safe, legal and uncomplicated abortion. She cites an entry in the Resource Manual of The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia declaring that "fetal gender determination for non‐medical purposes is unethical" (PDF). This practice, says Dr. Kale, is not only unethical but "repugnant," in certain immigrant communities in Canada and in their original societies in east and south Asia (China, India, and countries near to them).

Unfortunately for Dr. Kale and her moralizing colleagues the Earth is already overpopulated and that the most overpopulated countries include those where sex-selective abortion is practiced. Considering "the big picture" I can't help thinking that "female feticide" is an ultimately beneficial practice, keeping the steadily-increasing population from increasing faster. Note that the original countries where this is common are already among the world's most crowded places, which might be why so many people from those countries are moving elsewhere. Both practices, abortion and immigration, are among these countries' least repugnant "safety valves" to slow down the rate of population increase thereby keeping the quality of life from degenerating even further.

My second objection is that forbidding women the option of aborting female fetuses impinges on their natural right to terminate pregnancy, forcing them to carry a fetus and birth a child that they don't want. Keep in mind that in many of these countries contraception is hard to get and is frowned upon when one can find it, which reinforces women's subjection by denying them control over whether they will get pregnant; indeed in many parts of these countries a woman is likely to be beaten if she tries to control whether she'll have sex in the first place. That is, in these societies where women are disempowered they are disempowered because they are women. Such sexism is repugnant, which makes Dr. Kale's opinion even more repugnant: she'd rather reinforce women's subjugation than diminish it by those means the society's customs provide.

I'm sure Dr. Kale agrees that Canada and "the West" in general are far better for women in that our cultural beliefs and practices, including our codes of law, protect women better than their home countries do. For one thing in our countries a husband who beats or rapes his wife is likelier to be prosecuted for it and the wife likelier to find safe refuge from further rapes and beatings. How odd that these Canadian physicians insist that a woman should continue a pregnancy they don't want, finding the alternative -- letting women control their own bodies -- somehow immoral. Furthermore, because the physcians practice according to a "multicultural" ideology they would deny control over their own bodies not only to Asian immigrants but to all Canadian women. Reproductive sexism: what a grand moral and ethical idea that is!

Thirdly, let us not forget that in these cases a female fetus is aborted because a girl child is not wanted. I.e. that child is not wanted. For whatever reason her birth might well be unwelcome and her life, even in Canada, less safe, secure and free than a boy's. Have these learned doctors no concern for the child once its born? Must the world's population of unwanted and abused children increase apace with its general numbers?

I understand that one of the objections to sex-selective abortion is to prevent "reproductive collapse" in these ethnic groups, and yes I'm as much against racism as sexism. The problem with these doctor's particular application of principle is that each and every ethnic group is comprised of human beings and that all human beings reside on one planet. Our planet is already overburdened with people, especially the home countries of the ethnic groups we're discussing. Must we favor the ability of some ethnic groups to further crowd and wreck our planet at everyone's expense? Is that not racism against those who are not of these ethnicities?

It would be far better for these Canadian physicians to concern themselves with the condition of the women of Canada in general and immigrant women in particular, that everyone who agrees that the position of women in these ethnic groups should be raised should use less directly intrusive means to do so. It would be far better for Canadian society to teach immigrant men (and all men) that women are just as human as they are and to teach immigrant women (and all women) to value and stand up for themselves. We in "the West" have little ability to get rid of sexism where these women immigrated from; let us at least ensure that their lives among us be better than they were at home. If that includes letting them abort female fetuses then so be it, along with working to further improve the lives of immigrant women and girls (and all women and girls) in our "more advanced" societies.

However objectionable one might find sex-selective abortion the alternative is just as bad -- and likelier to be worse. Let's not let our "enlightened" ethical sensibilities be twisted to degrade the quality of life.