The Real War on Women: Baby Girls in Peril

Pages: 1 2

Never mind the phony “war on women” contraception controversy concocted by the Left to help get President Obama re-elected. There is a real gender war being launched against females around the world, as documented in a provocative article titled “The Global War Against Baby Girls” by Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute. Specifically, Mr. Eberstadt, a political economist and a demographer, is referring to the practice of “sex-selective feticide, implemented through the practice of surgical abortion with the assistance of information gained through prenatal gender determination technology.”

The Obama administration is indifferent to the spreading use of abortion to deliberately control the growth of the female population. This should not be surprising, considering that, as a state senator in Illinois, Barack Obama consistently refused to support legislation that would define an infant who survives a late-term induced-labor abortion as a human being with the right to live.

And, as I will discuss below, left-wing feminists are perfectly willing to ignore the war against future generations of baby girls if it means preserving abortion on demand at all costs.

Without the deliberate tilting of the scales against the birth of baby girls through gender-discriminatory abortions, the normal sex ratio at birth (SRB) for large human populations has tended to be in the range of 105 newborn boys for every 100 newborn girls. There are millions upon millions of new “missing baby girls” each year, whom Eberstadt defines as the number of baby girls who would have been expected to be born based on the normal biological sex ratio at birth, but were not given a chance to live because of sex-selective feticide.

Eberstadt documents the tragic statistics in his article, starting with China, where girls are not valued as highly as boys. Anti-female eugenics by abortion has resulted in a sex ratio at birth approaching 120 in China – more than 14% over the expected natural biological norm. Eberstadt provides detailed SRB figures by Chinese province, with the ratio reaching more than 130 newborn boys for every 100 newborn girls in at least two provinces.

China has a coercive population control program known as the “One Child Only” policy. Although Beijing officially outlawed prenatal sex determination in 1989, and criminalized sex-selective abortion in 2004, it does little to enforce those laws while concentrating its resources on enforcing its overall One Child Only program. That’s not to say that such enforcement is airtight. Some families do have more than one child. According to Eberstadt, the total number of births per woman per lifetime is estimated by the UN Population Division as averaging 1.64 for the 2005-2010 period, and by the U.S. Census Bureau International Data Base at 1.54 for the year 2010. However, the data show that Chinese families are more inclined to strictly adhere to the One Child Only edict by means of abortion if they learn that the second child would have been a girl.

“Chinese parents appear to have been generally willing to rely upon biological chance for the sex outcome of their first baby,” Eberstadt observed, “but with increasing frequency they have been relying upon health care technology and services to ensure that any second- or higher-order baby would be a boy.”

At work is the interplay of coercive governmental action and cultural norms. The Chinese government seeks to strictly control the overall population through the means of its enforced, but imperfect, One Child Only policy. Cultural norms in China that devalue the worth of girls, as compared to boys, have led many Chinese women to submit to abortions of prenatally identified female fetuses, particularly if they already have a child. The sex ratio at birth for children born after the first child has been “stratospheric,” according to Eberstadt. As of 2005, this ratio was an astonishing 143 for second births and rose to 156 for third births – 36% and 48% above the natural biological sex ratio respectively.

Eberstadt concluded that, to the extent there are births in a Chinese family beyond one child, they are heavily skewed on purpose towards male births:

“…there is absolutely no doubt that shockingly distorted sex ratios for newborns and children prevail in China today — and that these gender imbalances have increased dramatically during the decades of the One Child Policy…In effect, most of contemporary China’s abortions are thus intentional female feticides.”

The net result is that, through deliberate killing of fetuses identified as female by inexpensive prenatal gender determination ultrasonography, the population in China is being socially engineered to radically favor boys over girls.

Let’s not forget that Vice President Joe Biden said during his official visit to China: “I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family.” The “pro-women” Obama administration is also not second-guessing China’s use of abortions to deliberately extinguish the lives of little girls in the womb. Tragically, the Obama administration is making American taxpayers accessories to this calamity. It insists on contributing to the United Nations Population Fund, which helps China carry out its brutal population control policies.

China, while the most coercive in its eugenics policies, is far from the only country experiencing alarming unnatural disparities in the sex ratio at birth between boys and girls due to widespread abortions of female fetuses that have been gender identified by inexpensive obstetric ultrasonography. Eberstadt lists other countries in Asia with similarly high ratio disparities such as Singapore, Vietnam, and India where sex-selective abortion is technically illegal.

The sex-selective abortions cut across religious, educational, socio-economic lines.

However, Eberstadt identifies three forces contributing to this anti-female outcome in the Asian countries that he focused on. They are (1) “local mores that uphold a truly merciless preference for sons;” (2) “low or sub-replacement fertility trends which freight the gender outcome of each birth with extra significance for parents with extreme gender bias,” and (3) “easy and affordable abortion and prenatal sex diagnostics” that enable the eugenic manipulation of the population to favor males over females.

With globalization and increased mobility, intentional female feticides are becoming a world-wide phenomenon. Eberstadt estimates that over fifty countries and territories accounting for over 3.2 billion people, or nearly half of the world’s total population, have unnaturally high sex ratios at birth. The unnatural “girl deficit” for females 0-19 years of age as of 2010 are estimated to have totaled in the range of 32-33 million.

Pages: 1 2

  • Roger

    The left seems to hate natures way of reproduction.

    From any angle, the result is always the same. They want to depopulate the earth.

  • kblink45

    There is an old Chinese proverb,

    Boys come from girls.

    Or there should be.

  • maturin20

    The Eberstadt article was fascinating. The only part of this article's argument that was left unspoken was why sex-selective feticide is wrong. Not that it's right, but I would have appreciated some sort of foundation for why it's wrong and should be outlawed.

    • Zionista

      are you going out of your way to show how stupid you are? Do you need to have everything spelled out for you like a child? Can you not make the simplest adult inferences? I guess not.

      • maturin20

        Rude. But go ahead and spell it out for me.

        • mrbean

          I love the terms the left comes up with like "feticide" I will clue you in on how bad it is in China. "Infanticide" which the left likes to call "partial birth abortion" is not the exception but common practice in rural China where the sex pf the baby is unknown until birth.

          • maturin20

            Feticide was the term the author used in his article above.

            What would you do to stem the practice of infanticide in rural China?

    • waterwillows

      Well, I suppose there are those who would see a 'silver lining' to all this sex selective feticide.

      Perhaps you may not have considered that the more the numbers of females are reduced …..
      then it would naturally follow that the 'important status' of the male would drop considerably

      It could be said that the male birth would be regarded as so unimportant, that it would be males that were sex selective for death. So the only way males can claim the 'status' is by having sufficient females to enable their status. Without females – men would be regarded as disposibles.

      Is that sufficient right and wrong for you? Interesting future, is it not?

    • Outraged

      Because it leads inevitably to war and crime, that's why. Men who have no chance of ever finding a wife and starting a family are men with nothing to lose. When you have 30 million such men, as china does, you have two choices:

      1) accept the social consequences in terms of violent crime and social disorder
      2) hand them all rifles and send them marching forth for the greater glory of the Empire

      Any questions?

    • Outraged

      Oh, and one more thing. Clearly an obvious thing, but with the internet one never knows. I assume that you are writing tongue-in-cheek, but maybe you are serious. Abortion is murder. Murder is wrong.

  • UCSPanther

    Gender selection abortion is not just a crime against women, but a crime against our species as well…

    • maturin20

      Why is that?

      • kentatwater

        Denying life and liberty to people because of certain physical characteristics (like skin color and sex, for example), is something most cultures today (with the notable exception of islamic cultures) find abhorrent.

  • Amused

    I dont necessarily hear anything from ANYONE regarding China's 40 year old policy regarding number of children or gender . But we're not talking about China , ,and the author is disingenuous to say the least , to bring up this strawman , in the context of Limbaughs slanderous remarks /.

  • Amused

    And btw , it's not just " leftist women " who were offended by Limbaughs big filthy mouth , but all women of this country , so cut the bull .

    • Joseph Klein

      Were you equally "offended" by Bill Mahr's misogynist remarks against conservative women? And don't tell us, like Chuck Schumer did, that he's just a comedian. Mahr gave $1million to Obama's Super Pac, which Obama is yet to urge his Super Pac to return.

      Moreover, the article was not just about China. Had you read all the way through, you would have seen that female feticide is occurring right here in the United States and the radical feminists couldn't care less.

    • TheApronMom

      As a woman of 'this country', you don't speak for me Amused.

      • Amused

        I dont associate with , nor would I defend in debate any woman dumb enough to be a Rush-Sycophant . So yea , don't worry , I wouldn't think of speaking for you .

        • kentatwater

          I wouldn't think of speaking for you

          …but all women of this country…

          You were saying?

    • Zionista

      when's obamao giving back the million to bill maher – that spiteful troll -who uses the most disgusting language to refer to women, usually conservative women.

    • PAthena

      AMUSED claims to speak for all American women, on the basis of no evidence, typical of tyrants who claim to speak for "everyone." I am an American woman and far from being offended by Rush Limbaugh's remarks, thought they were justified. The cost of contraception is $0.00, since all a woman has to do is to say, "No." So the advocate of government funding for contraception shows herself unwilling to say,"No."

      • Amused

        PAthena , you're PAthetic .Your position is typical of what is found HERE on FPM , and FPM is by no means representative of the vast majority of American Women . And dont worry I'll never accuse you of intelligence .

        • kentatwater

          Vast majority? No. Majority? Yes.

    • PAthena

      AMUSED claims to speak for all American women, on the basis of no evidence, typical of tyrants who claim to speak for "everyone." I am an American woman and far from being offended by Rush Limbaugh's remarks, thought they were justified. The cost of contraception is $0.00, since all a woman has to do is to say, "No." So the advocate of government funding for contraception shows herself unable to say,"No."

    • Puckster

      When did I give you the authority to speak for me? All women were NOT offended by Rush's remarks, particularly those of us who actually listened to Fluke's astroturf press conference and Rush's show.

  • Alex Kovnat

    You would think we men would oppose infanticide of females, if for no other reason than if said practice continues, it will result in a world where there won't be enough marriageable women to go around for all us guys.

    • curmudgeon

      dont worry. the left has already initiated the solution to the problem. why else would the liberals be promoting homosexuality, if not to compensate for the looming shortage of females? leftists arent stupid, they are just evil.

      • scum

        Wrong. The left doesn't 'promote' homosexuality just because someone supports equal rights. Moreover, there are quite a number of GAY REPUBLICANS. That's why they have their own organization.

        • Ann

          yes, the left does "PROMOTE" homosexuality —they are pushing it on everyone,no one can have a different view because if you do you are called a homophobic —sorry—but your left homophobic behavior is showing—EVEN YOUR LEADER IS NOT IN FAVOR OF GAY MARRIAGE AND THE DICTATOR IS ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MUSLIMS KILLING OF GAYS—HE JUST USES GAYS TO TRY TO GET VOTES!!!

  • scum

    Last time I checked, we didn't set policy in China. Do you?

    • reader

      What does setting policy have to do with anything? The point is that Obama is the posturer-in-chief in all the wrong places for all the wrong reasons.

  • Ann


  • W. C. Taqiyya

    That's typical. Don't give us what we want, when when want it, and then say it's for our own good. You evil male elephant piles of shiite. Give me everything. Is that hard to understand? Hooray for killing infants, hooray for homosexual sterility, hooray for government control of silly republicans, hooray for everything that is completely stupid. Never mind, just give it to me. You stupid. So there.

  • Joseph Klein

    You should quit now before you make a complete fool of yourself. The FPM article, along with the Eberstadt piece on which it is based, points out that the targeted sex-selective killing of female fetuses is a world-wide problem, including here in the United States. If you think that Rush's radio program or, for that matter, Maher's HBO program which the Left seems to have no problem with (even though Maher's misogynist remarks are worse than anything Rush has said and Maher unlike Rush has not apologized, are comparable, then again it is time for you to just quit now.

  • W. C. Taqiyya

    Incredible. Do you mean to say abortion prevents females from being born? Jeepers, Wally. And I always thought women were more compassionate, loving and generally better than other people. Who knew?

  • Amused

    Left ? Homosexuality ? LOL….go talk to Republicans who tap dance in toilets or get "frisky " with their young Washington male interns . Lol….the left ain't got nothin' on the right when it comes to homosexual peccadillos .
    As for infanticide of newborn females , better go talk to the Chinese and the oeople of India , where male-newborns are culturally considered more valuable than females . And no , there is no such practice here in the US …never was , and anyone who says that is a LIAR , and anyone believing it , is an IDIOT .So if the shoe fits ANN ET AL …lol…then wear it .

  • Sound&Fury

    The bad news is, you're hopeless. There's no cure for stupid.

    • maturin20

      You don't believe in education's power to awaken the mind?

  • Jeamar

    "maturin20 " asked an excellent question to which he/she has not yet received any answer. I will try a few just off the top of my head which means at this point I have no stats or "experts" to bolster my personal opinion of why selective sex feticide is wrong. 1-Look at the long term effects on a society where by culture and political policy males predominate. We see it every day on TV when we look at Middle Eastern protests. Where are the women? What becomes of a society where there are excess males? Existing females become a more valued commodity for mature men. That is why so many Middle Eastern arranged marriages are of very young women to much older men. Young men cannot afford marriage. In other words, as in the wild the old greybacks have an advantage. 2-The high value such cultures place on the virginity of women also accounts for the extreme control families exert on girls even to the extent of "honor" killings. 3-I think making infants of either sex disposable means that many people also see younger children as disposable and therefore their victimization in the sex trade is excusable or their abuse it not criminalized as in other cultures. 4-"Amused" refers to homosexuality. Whether or not one sees it as a social or moral problem or just an alternative lifestyle, think it is undeniable more of it exists where women are a scarce source. 5-If one accepts, as I do, that there are innate differences between males and females, e.g. aggressive vs. nurturing behavior, what happens long term in a society when these male/female differences are unnaturally out of balance? "Maturin20" may have meant the question of right vs wrong in a facetious manner but it is a question of great consequence to human societies.

    • maturin20

      I didn't mean it facetiously at all, and I appreciate the pragmatic approach to the question which you bring. Booya, sir.

    • KarshiKhanabad

      And thanks to China's "One Child" policy their People's Liberation Army is now made up mostly of womanless bachelors with no prospect of ever finding wives.

      "We're heavily armed, extremely horny, and one hundred million strong!"

      Sounds like things are much worse in India.

      • Outraged

        You're assuming that this consequence worries them. You forget that China needs resources. There is much lebensraum and mineral wealth in Central Asia. And there are plenty of women for all those soldiers to forcibly take as wives. In the first generation, the soldier-settlers exterminate the local men and take the local women as wives. In the second generation, their sons are Chinese. It's a proven formula. Why do you think China is so heavily Han? What is truly idiotic is that Obama is enabling this Chinese expansionism.

  • waterwillows

    Actually, there is a very practical reason to stop this war on the female fetus. Just look down the road a little and what do you see?
    Look at what is happening in the countryside of India today. They have simply run out of females for their males to marry. They murdered them all and now have to look outside the country for brides.

    They 'import' brides from neighbouring countries. But this is of course costly and rural India is poor. So .. what to do to solve this problem?
    They solution to this problem of no females is terrible to both the males and of course the imported female.

    You can well imagine the imported brides's surprise when she learns on her wedding day that that she is to be 'bride' to not only her husband … but to all his brothers as well.
    So this poor, hapless female is trapped into rape marriage and her sex duties go one day and night for the brothers. Mind, she is not excused from her other chores that also must be completed.

    So the point I am making is that when you reduce the number of females in the world – you have opened the door to allow even greater evil to come in. It is a most miserable future for all. Do we really want this?

  • Amused

    I love how you phony hypocrites shift the argument from contaceptives to female feticide . This is typical of the mentality around here . You CREATE the "BOGEYMAN " , call it a monster of the left ,and valiantly shadow box to eastionalize your irrational position .
    LOL…how many of you , man or woman , married or single engage in sexual activity ? You phonies ! How many of you use condums ? How many of your daughters , sisters , mothers or female freinds use birth control pills or devices ?? OR how many just engage in sex for the sake of procreation ? The hypocrisy here is jaw-dropping .
    It wouldn't be half bad , if the idiots you have elected , were not trying to legislate this brand of" narrowminded hypocritical morality " into law , thereby violating the Constitution that you "allege " to know and love by FORCING your religious views on others , backed by the force of Law .

    • JoJoJams

      What the hell are you babbling about?? Of COURSE we all have sex! We just don't demand the insurance companies (and consequently, all the insured, through higher premiums) pay us for it! And we don't want to pay for anyone else's! Look, Amused, how about a compromise?? I know! I know! That's a tough concept for the loony left! Compromise:: NO insurance payouts for contraceptives, in general, but certainly, if the woman (or man) has a verifiable medical condition that "the pill" can help to alleviate, than sure! ~ coverage! And please don't bring up viagra. i do agree and believe that shouldn't be paid for out of insurance either! Compromise! Ok?

    • JoJoJams

      And talk about bogeymen arguments! Who is trying to "legislate into law" some type of morality?? Au contraire! It's YOU trying to legislate in to law your OWN morality, by forcing health care providers to provide contraceptives, even if it's against their morality! My GOD! ~ Talk about hypocrisy! No – I am NOT amused!

  • Amused

    And if you think this is far-fetched , well think again . It's already being done and attempted in several states .And in most all cases , guess who is behind enacting their views as Law ? Republican and Conservative legislators , that 's who . And the hype is built in with traditional wild and paranoid claims, like the content of this garbage article , meant to evoke exactly the respones that it is getting from you nimrods . How you make the jump from contraception to female feticide is CLASSIC , a trademark of republican /conservative ideology. You think not ? Well how else could a loon like Santorum garner the votes he's getting , after making the unbeleivably ridiculous statements that have become his trademark ? Sex for procreation only ? What utter BULLSHEET and HYPOCRISY !! And now this . I take solace that such " AYATOLLAH-LIKE " views and behavior , is limited to your own sick repo/con fringe circles .In primaries we see today , they are mere thousands , and not the millions that would be required to put in place such a totalitarian theocracy .

    • JoJoJams

      Dude. Citations and links — just WHERE in this nation is your bogeyman "laws" being legislated? On the contrary, it's YOU and YOURS who are legislating that healthcare providers MUST provide contraceptives, whether it goes against the morality of the providers or not! Astounding – your willful ignorance and hypocrisy! Your OWN bogeyman arguments and infantile accusations! Simply amazing! But definitely NOT amusing.

  • waterwillows


    Got ourselves all worked up into a lather have we?

    Well, if you want some idea of the number of peoples 'like us' as you so inelgantly put it … I'll give you a rough estimate. World-wide we are in the tens of millions … easily. And could be higher.
    Now when you cross over, the numbers are so vast they can't be counted.

    I think it is time for you to wake up Amused. Consider, is Holllywood really the entire population of America? So too, is the lefty/secular world. It is really just a small portion of the numbers, that have hi-jacked the media. They think if they drone on and on, loud enough, and long enough, it will make their agenda 'right'.
    However, they do think wrongly and it will not stand.