In the first issue of The Economist for the new year, the Banyan (the journal's column devoted to Asia) wrote a piece on the challenge of sex-selective abortion among Asian countries. In general, it lamented the practice because it targets girls who are not viewed as highly as boys. I'll spare you the details as you can read it for yourself, but what I find so very interesting is that it seems to go without question that sex-selective abortion is wrong. The article does not bother to argue why it is wrong. My guess is that some notion of women's rights is the driving force of the article. In so many ways I am all for women's rights! But that is not the primary reason why sex-selective abortion is wrong. It is an important part, but it is not the ultimate reason. It is wrong because killing the unborn, girl or boy, is wrong. Contrast this method of abortion with the "equal opportunity" abortion policy of western countries where a mother can have an abortion simply because it was an accident, she was not old enough or mature enough to care for baby, she didn't have enough money, etc. Please hear me, I know there are scenarios that are very complicated, and although I still think abortion is wrong on principal, I want to sympathetically acknowledge such occasions. However, most abortions are probably not due to such unique circumstances. Most, I would venture to say, are due to irresponsible and selfishness behavior. I know a girl who has had two abortions, although I knew her only when she had the second, and it was simply inconvenient to her and her extended family. Her mother told her that she could not bring the baby into her house, where my friend needed to stay for financial reasons. My friend's mother bears her own guilt for making such a requirement, but my friend made an entirely selfish choice. She soon got rid of that boyfriend, who wanted nothing to do with the child whom she aborted, and she found another guy with whom she'll have to be more careful. The "equal opportunity" abortion practice in the West is assumed by many to be a justified practice, something that goes without explaining. (Obviously abortion is still debated, but culturally and politically it is often assumed to be the "human rights" position. Some Republican candidates are pro-life only to tow the party line. And many who are against abortion support many anti-life issues! Another topic for another day.)
The irony is that from the West's perspective sex-selective abortion is assumed to be morally evil while non-selective abortion is assumed to be morally okay. What's more offensive? The overall thoughtlessness that this requires, or the latent hypocrisy that seems so obvious?
