Pro-Abortion Groups Ignore Women's Suffering in China

In an editorial by Kathleen Parker on November 11 regarding coerced abortions and sterilizations in China, we learn deeply disturbing details regarding the lengths the Chinese government goes to in order to enforce their one-child policy. The information was smuggled out by activists, at their own peril.

The activists have confirmed our fears: If a woman in China who does not have a "birth permit" is discovered to be pregnant, she "has to surrender her unborn child to government enforcers, no matter what the stage of fetal development. " This means she is dragged into a clinic, onto a table and her child is killed in her womb and extracted --apparently even if she were in active labor, moments from delivery.

The editorial relates accounts of how -- even though killing a baby is illegal -- perfectly healthy late-term infants who survive an abortion are left to die, sometimes taking a couple of days in a trash can to do so.

Even though not every abortion in China is "forced," one can only imagine just how many of the estimated 13 million abortions in China every year are in essence coerced, if not in actuality. That's right -- every year a number larger than the population of Greece is aborted. (But of course, when CNN reports this, the most important aspect of the story is that there is not enough contraception or sex education, not the tragedy of why 13 million children die largely due to its country's ineptitude. Yeah, contraception and education would get that number down to "only" 10 million, easy!)

The Chinese government foresees that this policy will be in place for decades to come.

Of course, many other problems result from this one-child policy that detrimentally affect Chinese women, and other Asian countries. The preference of having a son has led to a disproportion of 37 million fewer women, which has caused the sex slavery trade to increase at an alarming rate. (I imagine that number would be even higher if China hadn't relaxed the policy in some counties for families to have a second child if the first is a girl.)

Almost lost amongst the sad statistics is that 500 women each day (yes, I had to go back and check because I still can't believe it) 500 women each day commit suicide in China. Almost 15,000 a month... 180,000 a year... The highest rate in the world can be attributed at least partly (how big a part one can only speculate) by the policy, activists say.

So where is the outrage from "women's rights" groups here in America? You know the ones who say that abortion is not a good thing, but should remain a woman's "choice"? What do they have to say when it's not a choice? What do they say when women are forced against their will, literally taken into bodily custody and coerced into this "procedure"?

My search found one sentence. Followed by a big "But..." (You know, one of those statements that totally delegitimizes the previous sentence, as if the second is important, the first... not so much.)

In a Spring 2008 newsletter Planned Parenthood said:

"We were shocked and repulsed by the 'one-child' policy of China that forced women to have abortions against their will. But, here in America, there are constant attempts to pass laws that would force women to have children against their will."

That's right, stopping physical violence inflicted upon unknown millions of women who must endure the murder of their very wanted children before their eyes... Not as important as denying the preborn their right to live in an affluent nation that would welcome every single one of our aborted children into the arms of a couple waiting to adopt, or could provide a mother with the support to raise her child... ahem. 

Every other search I tried, for NOW and NARAL e.g., turned up nothing, though I imagine somewhere they said something equally benign and self-serving.

But of course these organizations are only concerned about having more abortions in the world, not fewer. They want countries with restrictions to change their laws so more abortions can be performed, and they want the U.S. to pay for them.

They're too busy working to bring more abortions to women who don't really want them. They don't have time to worry about stopping abortions performed on women who really don't want them.

The women of China and their preborn children are waiting. We must stop ignoring their desperate cries for help.

Comments

[ChunLing]

I know that this is a serious issue...but I prefer the term 'prenatal' to 'preborn'. The combination of the past tense form of the verb with that prefix implies that the child has undergone some preliminary form of being born prior to being born. Also, I think the term was used in Frank Herbert's Dune series to indicate children who became self-aware in the womb due to magic spice exposure. Which at least makes some kind of sense even though technically children aren't any more aware immediately after being born than they are immediately before. Actually, given the physical stresses of birth, it takes several days to get back 'up to speed' mentally after birth.

Anyway, 'prenatal' (and 'neonatal') are perfectly good and correct terms, as far as I can tell. 'Preborn' makes my teeth grind every time I hear it. It's not as horrible as little babies being torn to pieces by surgical tools inserted vaginally, but it's not a butterfly landing on my finger either.

I know the number of suicides seems shocking, but realistically speaking, it's really more amazing that more people in China don't commit suicide any given day. I suppose that's a testament to the power of the human spirit or something. Can you imagine what would happen if Beijing started promising those 37 million men who have absolutely no chance of getting married a bunch of nubile women if they wage war on the U.S.? The French and Germans, at least, have imagined that scenario. Well, not that exact scenario. Suicide bombers isn't exactly a can Beijing wants to open, they have a much better plan.

Of course, my team has plans too. I can't say I like 'em all that much, but that's just the same part of me that cringes at 'preborn'. If saying 'preborn' instead of 'prenatal' actually convinces people to think about what happens in an abortion, go with it. I'm not convinced it does, but then again I wouldn't necessarily know.

[Colette Moran]

Ummm... oooookkkkk.

I think that since the legal nit-picking is that only people *born* in America have rights (which is not true) that is why the pro-life movement chose "preborn."

And most folks (like me) have never seen or read Dune...

[ChunLing]

Ugh...if the term is supposed to imply that prenatal children are already born in some 'legal' sense, that's just dishonest. And a bit dumb...not just because 'preborn' doesn't come across as terribly erudite.

The false entanglement of American citizenship and basic human rights is an important issue and deserves to be confronted directly, particularly given that the vast majority of pro-aborts don't believe that American citizenship is necessary to full Constitutional rights for anyone except tiny babies. Saying it's okay to brutally murder anyone who hasn't quite qualified for citizenship is something that should be challenged, not finessed.

Not that I'm particularly prone to finesse anyway.

On the other hand, there are interesting theological implications to birth. Though most people inclined to take fine theological distinctions seriously are naturally inclined towards the pro-life position. I mean, the entire ordinal character of natural reproduction in mortality is violated by sticking sharp bits of metal up into a woman's womb and ripping her baby apart. It's just so wrong when you look at it that way.

Also, can you imagine how much it would suck to be chopped up like that and then be told, "Well, technically you don't qualify for entry into Heaven, having never drawn breath...don't worry, we'll work something out." I would totally not like that.