[Laws banning sex-selection abortions] are rooted in the racist notion that Asian-American women abort female fetuses because they prefer boys.... Every time right-wing activists raise the concept of sex-selective abortions, they further a misleading narrative that defames Asian-American women. On Wednesday, the anti-choice Charlotte Lozier Institute released a paper written by Anna Higgins, who is one member of a panel testifying before Thursday’s Senate subcommittee. “Sex selection in favor of males is practiced in some Asian immigrant communities within the U.S.,” the report reads....
April 14, 2016
Slate says there are "racist overtones" to a Senate bill that bans abortion motivated by the sex of the fetus.
What's racist about opposing sexism?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
54 comments:
I suppose pointing out that the male:female ratios in certain parts of the world is verboten...
What's racist about opposing sexism?
Disparate impact:
10 Hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman
Oh looky there. Them flaming Liberals just jumped the shark. Again.
More commerce clause bullshit. So much for a limited federal government.
Racism vs sexism. Who wins? It probably won't matter since the law would be unenforcable anyway.
You can get a pretty good idea of the health of a society by observing what obviously true things must not be mentioned and what obviously false things are held to be truthful.
When the only tool you're capable of using is a hammer...
Does this really require an explanation? They can't argue against a limitation on abortion on the merits. They've got nothing other than their maxed out race card.
[Laws banning sex-selection abortions] are rooted in the racist notion that Asian-American women abort female fetuses because they prefer boys....
Laws banning sex selection abortions are concerned with the hypothesized danger of a society where males significantly outnumber females. Such societies are believed to be prone to war as a means of evening the sex ratios, both by killing off males and by bringing back conquered females.
However I have no idea how one bans abortions based on the reasoning of the mother. She is under no compulsion to be truthful and could easily substitute an approved reason for a disapproved reason (i.e., fears of a malformed fetus due to Zeka exposure when the true reason is desire to abort a female fetus).
More proof that on the Progressive Chart of Grievance Mongering women rate one small step above white men ... who don't make the Chart. Which means that females rank at the bottom, with transgender punching up to knock Muslim out of the top spot.
A recent study claims that 50% of people carry gay genes. So half of all abortions are homophobic.
Not pro life but anti choice?
Maybe it's time we threw that back in their faces. Pro life and what, murderers? No reason to call them what they want to be called.
All "isms" are bad. Terribly bad for those without the mental capacity to understand the language.
"What's racist about opposing sexism?"
Seriously?
"What's racist about opposing sexism?"
Doing it while being a rethuglican.
Because everything can be made to be "racist" 24/7. Time to finally say, even if it is, so what!!! Racist is what people have always been to one extent of another. "Racist" as a crime derived from enlisting the power of the state to support and enforce it. Reversing that power was absolutely necessary. Everything else is attempted shunning and witch hunting to avoid facing the actual issues. Ironically, both of which are as much human nature as racism.
"Laws banning sex-selection abortions] are rooted in the racist notion that Asian-American women abort female fetuses because they prefer boys.... Every time right-wing activists raise the concept of sex-selective abortions, they further a misleading narrative that defames Asian-American women. "
it's racist to point out the truth? All you have to do is look at the abortion rate in China to see that they do favor boys. And this is poointing out the sexism of china's abortion policy. Pointing out sexism, becomes racism. If there's not one victimology there's another.
By the way, even though I,m not an abortion supporter I don't really favor this law.
It strikes me like a hate crime law.why does it matter why you would abort a baby? Regardless of motivation 50% of babies that are aborted will be a male or female. and if you have a choice then why can't you choose in your own self interest? If you are a sexist, or a racist, you still have a right to choose. And someone who didn't have a bias against a girl baby but still aborted a baby thst was a girl did the exact same thing.
I acquired a stalker on Facebook when I commented that men could not comment on abortion only if the aborted fetuses were female. I thought this was pretty obvious since 50% of abortions involve male fetuses but this was a hate crime to the SJW and she messaged every female "friend" I had on Facebook. Since I discourage Facebook friends unless they are relatives, I was bit surprised to learn how many relatives are sexist and lacking humor. But I repeat myself.
Everything the Republicans do is racist. Prof. Althouse used to write like that, before she got married.
We shouldn't discriminate against Slopes like that. Let them kill their female fetuses.
Mike: "Laws banning sex selection abortions are concerned with the hypothesized danger of a society where males significantly outnumber females."
I suspect not, at least here in the U.S. It's because there's something especially offensive about aborting a baby (sorry) for such a ridiculous reason.
Sorry, ladies. Race trumps gender. Of course, everything trumps being conservative or Republican.
4/14/16 "They can't argue against a limitation on abortion on the merits."
Exactly. They will never, ever, give a centimeter on any restriction whatsoever, as they fear the (reverse?) slippery slope.
On one hand their fear is well founded--the never-abortion industry has made no secret as to their end goal. In fact, those groups, many of which I now doubt their sincerity and question their self-perpetuating ways, are most likely (though technically innocently) the reason the current kill/chop/sell at any stage industry started pushing for so much more after Roe.
Think about the recent extremes the slay for any reason side has resorted to: forcing pregnancy centers in California that give asistance (medical, financial, housing, etc.) to have large signs posted at their place of business informing women of their right to an abortion, and I believe the info on where to obtain one at no cost; their eschewing any and all normal medical facility cleanliness and ambulatory standards; their fight against ultrasounds (that one really torques me, the real reason they don't want it is $$, not just the cost of the machines and a tech, but they'd have to decline some abortions thus losing $$ when the baby is determined to be older than their operations cut off, which is a HUGE risk to the mother's health, often leading to hemmorage, a full hysterectomy, or death); and in the pipeline, (at least in California) for NP's to perform even non-chemical abortions; and most repugnant, the push is starting to force medical personnel (Dr.'s, NP's, and RN's) to participate in the full spectrum of "women's health services" at the point of a gun.
The never-abortion side has helped create these extremes--extremes which are now by and large seen as "rights" never to be taken away, and abortion has morphed into the sole issue that determines tens of millions of Americans' choice for President--pretty sad that the sole reason for the slide into socialism and tyranny is based upon snuffing another human being.
Abortion is never going away. It is sad that the never-abortion industry did not accept this and focus on genuine women's health decades ago by having "safe and rare" and most importantly, a reasonable cutoff (24 weeks?) as their goal. I believe it could have been reasonably accomplished. Think of all the women and children's lives over the past 40 years that may have been saved.
I'm glad these leftists can spot all the dog whistles which are apparently intended for us right wingers which oddly we right wingers are unable to spot.
[Laws banning sex-selection abortions] are rooted in the racist notion that Asian-American women abort female fetuses because they prefer boys....
Says who?
Laws regulating the production and sale of chicken are rooted in the racist notion that African-Americans preferentially eat fried chicken.
Wrong framing. It is the pro-choice religion and its selective-child doctrine that inculcates class diversity prejudice. Whereas the human rights movement is motivated by the human nature of the baby, the mother, and a reconciliation of moral and natural imperatives.
While the problem sets of one-child and selective-child are intersecting (e.g. human baby, mother), they encompass different issues (e.g. minority vs democratic psychosis, environmental stability) and solutions (e.g. authoritarian vs religious/moral reform, education).
The dysfunctional revolution has progressive consequences following establishment of a pro-choice religion, science, law, etc.
Oh, well. Sex, taxes, green lawns, and democratic leverage.
"The never-abortion side has helped create these extremes"
Seriously? You give a huge list of the ridiculous extremes that the pro-abortion side goes to, and it's OUR fault?
So if we start killing every abortion provider in the country, by your logic, can we blame it on the pro-aborts because they helped create -those- extremes? Of course not. That will be all our fault too.
Funny how it always works out exactly that way.
"I'm glad these leftists can spot all the dog whistles which are apparently intended for us right wingers which oddly we right wingers are unable to spot."
If someone blows a dog whistle, and you hear it, that just means you're the dog.
The most hilarious thing about this is that the only evident racism is on the part of those making the accusation of racism. THEY heard "sex selective abortion" and thought "ASIANS!!!".
"The never-abortion side has helped create these extremes"
Too many Jews. Too many babies. Familiar argument.
The cause is, of course, procreation. With procreation, there are too many Jews. With reproduction, there are too many babies. A common cause and common solution: the "final solution".
The baby trials will only end with moral progress of men and women capable of self-moderating, responsible behavior. A reconciliation of moral and natural imperatives.
If you prohibit abortions based on protected characteristics discovered through amniocentesis, sonograms, etc., then AT THE MARGIN you will have a chilling effect on all abortions of fetuses with one or more protected characteristics, even though the prospective parents may not be motivated by any of those characteristics.
For some, that is an unintended consequence, for others it is exactly what they intend.
Wouldn't it be racist to advocate for abortion in an ethnic population regardless of the sex of the fetus.
I believe Ms. Sanger had something to say about that.
If you accept "my body my choice" you must oppose this bill.
In Oregon they are proposing a law to ban abortions based on the race of the father. How sexist.
It is a moronic bill because you could just, you know, lie about your motives. Dipshit virtue signaling is a Lefty obsession but not a Lefty monopoly.
Good grief.
Firstly, when did it become racist to discriminate against Asian-Americans? Someone better tell all of the college admissions boards in the country about that. I think the official current position is that it's racist *not* to discriminate against Asian-Americans.
Secondly, how would you even begin to enforce such a law?
Hey, I have an idea. We should make it illegal to buy a gun that you intend to use to commit murder.
During school she received A's for inventing new ways to call the left's political enemies racist, and now she has a job doing to same thing. Who says college doesn't prepare people for their future work environment.
the racist notion that Asian-American women abort female fetuse
"Racist" meaning "true, but our philosophy says it's not supposed to be true."
Two related studies, published on Monday in CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal), found a higher-than-expected ratio of boys to girls born to immigrants from India over the past two decades, which researchers linked to preceding abortions. This gender imbalance was particularly striking among families that already had two daughters."
Dr. Lisa Eng, a gynecologist who practices in Manhattan's and Brooklyn's Chinatowns, referred to the preference, even insistence, of some older Chinese women on having a male descendent to carry their surname as the “mother-in-law-factor.”
“Half of the time, the women are really remorseful,” she said. “The woman doesn't care about [her husband's] name. It's the mother-in-law.”
So being pro-life you are now a racist and sexist.....
Keep it up liberals and soon all your slurs will be meaningless. There will be no shock value as everyone has heard the terms a zillion times. Heard it used so absurdly everyone else rolls their eyes upward and they snicker.
Good grief, Sebastian, what does Trump have to do with this???
;-)
All I want to know is: is it or isn't it true that this is a common practice in the US?
I'm guessing Slate doesn't want to know.
Ah, the old argumento ad "whoever smelt it, dealt it".
And of course it's impossible to model other people without being completely overwhelmed by the imagined mojo. And writers of fiction are the most vile people of all.
Ms. Sanger could not be reached for comment.
Oh, what the hell. I'm willing to be obvious here: After a testing period of--um, well, just, only at least!--something akin to 35 years, China finally crept to a rethinking, on account of the unintended consequences 'n' all, of its one-child policy and what might have resulted from that in terms of steadily creeping effects. /sarc
Meanwhile, Slate chooses to become Sludge;--sheesh, in other other words, sentient not sapient.
amirite?
If you are basing your judgments of others unlike yourself based on your own internal models, there is a word for you: bigot. Fiction writers deal in illusion and rely heavily on the prejudices of their readers to fill in the blanks. That has to be the stupidest argument I have ever seen that strained so hard to appear smart.
He who perceived it conceived it. Is that better?
It's racist for...reasons. Clearly.
Every time right-wing activists raise the concept of sex-selective abortions, they further a misleading narrative that defames Asian-American women.
Black women overwhelmingly abort girls, as well. Ditto white women.
Apparently, women really do hate other women.
it's racist to point out the truth? All you have to do is look at the abortion rate in China to see that they do favor boys. And this is poointing out the sexism of china's abortion policy. Pointing out sexism, becomes racism. If there's not one victimology there's another.
It's even worse when you point out that, in Chinese culture, there is a perfectly rational reason why they'd prefer boys. It's based on what gender is expected to financially support the parents in their old age.
It isn't the daughters who are expected to do so, mind you.
It is sad that the never-abortion industry did not accept this and focus on genuine women's health decades ago by having "safe and rare" and most importantly, a reasonable cutoff (24 weeks?) as their goal. I believe it could have been reasonably accomplished.
Missed the hubbub over partial birth abortions or expecting abortion clinics to live up to the same standards as actual medical practices, eh?
Smart fellows make the best fart smellers, even smelling them when they are not there. In that sense, he who smelt it dealt it.
But thinking is hard for some.
It's a hatefact--it's something that's true (in objective terms) but it's a form of hate to mention or even to really believe the truth about that particular fact. It's racist to notice an actual difference when that difference means that a "minority" group is worse in some way.
It's ok to say "white people are greedier than non-whites," for example, but it's not ok to say "Asian women abort female babies at a much higher rate than do non-Asian women."
Wow, after spending much of the article arguing that Asian women in the US don't abort female babies at a higher rate, the author ends with this sentence:
A woman’s reason for obtaining a legal medical procedure shouldn’t be subject to any politician’s litigation.
In other words she thinks women ought to be free to abort for sex-selection! The accusation of racism is just slight-of-hand, the real argument is that no one can question a woman's choice (nor her reason for making that choice), so since all reasons a woman can give are valid, it's wrong to make sex-selective abortion illegal. Stunning.
So now they are not just "Pro Choice" but pro "Sophie's choice!"
That's why they are called "progressives!"
" it's wrong to make sex-selective abortion illegal. Stunning"
Right, it's racist because it would have a disproportionate impact on certain ethnicities.
If your position is that women don't need a reason to abort, that they can do so as a matter of right, you can't logically object to racist, sexist, or homophobic reasons. Not that that stops anyone.
Can't wait until they find genetic markers for homosexuality. Then it will become a crime. I mean you can only take this so far. What if somebody really wants biological grandchildren? That's as valid a reason as any.
Isn't everything progressives and media types object to racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/bigoted/triggering/evil/privileged/mean/[insert buzzword of the moment]? Expanding the explanation further would require actual engagement with the issues, which might mean the horror of acknowledging an ideological opponent has a point here and there, and then life would just be over.
The fact is inconvenient, but it is still a fact that girls get aborted more often than boys do, particularly in certain cultures. If it's racist to point out the merely factual, we might just as well dissolve all the science departments in the country, because science is forever going to keep coming up with these triggering nuggets about real differences between distinct groups of people. It's known as "diversity" in some places, which in case it's been forgotten, is etymologically the opposite of "equality" in the sense of "sameness."
There are two possible responses to this kind of fact. Either acknowledge there might be a problem in need of a remedy, or deny that it is a problem. In this case, acknowledging there is a problem can only lead to solutions that restrict abortion, so the fact must not be acknowledged as a problem by abortion supporters. They will be faced with the exact same choice if, say, it becomes possible to test for sexuality or any other of a host of other conditions that parents may not want as individuals, but which society might not exactly feel comfortable seeing all but eliminated from the population (although the dedicated pro-life folks will keep those groups going).
From the point of view of an article, which is easier? To explain why aborting girls is an absolute right or to scream racism at someone who had the gall to bring up the issue?
So it's racist to point out that Asians are more likely to have an abortion if they don't want a girl baby. It's also true. Because reality is racist.
Post a Comment