opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Steve Chapman
Steve Chapman
26 Nov 2015
Giving Thanks. No, for Real

It's Thanksgiving weekend, so let me suggest that you do something you may never have done before on this occasion:… Read More.

22 Nov 2015
Realism in Fighting the Islamic State

After a bloody series of terrorist attacks, the natural impulse is to respond with overwhelming force to make … Read More.

19 Nov 2015
Bad Ideas for Combating the Islamic State

Adversity, it's been said, doesn't build character; it reveals it. The terrorist attacks in Paris managed to … Read More.

Collateral Damage from 然eproductive Rights'


Metaphors can be useful, unless they are allowed to override reality. In recent weeks, advocates for "reproductive freedom" have said that part of the Republican "war on women" is the proposal to let religious employers refuse to buy contraceptive coverage in their health insurance plans.

But who is the enemy? Most women, a New York Times/CBS News poll finds, agree that religious hospitals and universities should be free to opt out. Nearly half think any employer should have that prerogative.

If the effort to limit the contraceptive mandate were truly a frontal assault on women, a majority of them would not be endorsing the offensive. But the ideology of groups like Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women (NOW) sometimes ignores inconvenient gender realities.

Those advocates have been distracted from a different and far less figurative war on women — which, as it happens, is helped rather than hindered by one of the "reproductive rights" they champion. Legal abortion may empower women, but it has also become a powerful method for the mass elimination of females.

Modern technology allows prospective parents to learn the sex of a fetus, and many of them use that knowledge to exercise a preference for sons. Absent such intervention, about 105 boys are born for every 100 girls. But as Mara Hvistendahl reports in her 2011 book "Unnatural Selection," the number for boys per 100 girls has risen to 112 in India and 121 in China.

It was once assumed that the general preference for male offspring would subside as countries became richer and women became more educated. But in country after country, that has proved false.

Nor is the phenomenon limited to the eastern hemisphere. Rajendra Kale, editor-in-chief of the Canadian Medical Association Journal, writes that "female feticide" is so common in Canada that he believes "doctors should be allowed to disclose this information only after about 30 weeks of pregnancy — in other words, when an unquestioned abortion is all but impossible."

French demographer Christophe Guilmoto, reports Hvistendahl, regards gender imbalance as "an epidemic. In the number of lives it has touched, he says, sex selection merits comparison with AIDS." Worldwide, experts say, the number of "missing girls" amounts to a stunning 163 million — more than the entire female population of the United States.

The gender imbalance is particularly outsized in China partly because of the government's compulsory one-child policy.

Yet that policy has sometimes been excused by supporters of women's rights. In 1989, as president of NOW, Molly Yard praised the Chinese population policy as "among the most intelligent in the world."

Selective abortion, however, does not target only girls. Recent screening advances now make it easier and safer to detect Down syndrome in the womb. Universal screening will have a predictable impact, because 92 percent of fetuses diagnosed with the abnormality are aborted.

Paul Root Wolpe, director of Emory University's Center for Ethics, told the New York Post, "What you end up having is a world without people with Down syndrome."

No one would object if that were achieved by curing the condition. But eradicating it through abortion doesn't sound so benign. A survey reported in the American Journal of Medical Genetics found that only 4 percent of parents with Down syndrome children regret having them — and nearly 99 percent of the people with the disorder said they are happy with their lives.

The practice of eliminating people who are regarded as unacceptable because of their sex or significant defects was probably an inevitable result of the proliferation of abortion. There may be others even more ominous.

A recent article in the Journal of Medical Ethics argues that abortion should not be limited to fetuses that have not yet been born. The authors propose instead to allow "after-birth abortion," which is "ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be" — which means, really, for any reason at all.

That policy may not be so improbable. Ann Furedi, head of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, has said, "There is nothing magical about passing through the birth canal that transforms it from a fetus into a person." The Netherlands now allows physicians to euthanize newborns with a "hopeless prognosis" and "unbearable suffering" if the parents authorize it.

Abortion-rights advocates think the right to choose has conferred great benefits. Maybe so, but not on everyone.

Steve Chapman blogs daily at To find out more about Steve Chapman, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at



2 Comments | Post Comment
It takes a special person and a boatload of money to properly raise a child with disabilities. I don't find it selfish or wrong when a parent or parents admit they aren't those special people. Everything, including abortion can be carried to it's lowest common denominator. The reality is, if the parents don't want the child it will be raised by the state (your tax money and mine) drive up the cost of medical care, and will have paid caretakers from birth to death.
Selective birth control didn't just happen, it's been going on for centuries. Only difference is now there are stats as they count the boys and girls. Don't worry, those who don't believe in contraception will have enough to even the numbers out. If we do have too many boys on the planet, not to worry. Start another war, that'll thin the population.
Comment: #1
Posted by: demecra zydeem
Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:23 PM
Mr Chapman mentions in his column a paper which appeared recently in the Journal of Medical Ethics whose authors argue that "after-birth abortion" is ethical. This paper should be setting off the alarm bells of Western civilization. Pope John Paul wrote in his encyclical, The Gospel of Life, "The contemporary scene, moreover, is becoming even more alarming by reason of the proposals, advanced here and there, to justify even infanticide, following the same arguments used to justify abortion. In this way, we revert to a state of barbarism which one hoped had been left behind forever" (paragraph 14). Pope John Paul wrote this in 1995. He continually spoke of the need to recognize and uphold the dignity of each and every human life, especially those lives which are the weakest and most vulnerable. When we begin to decide whose lives are worth preserving and whose lives are not, there is not telling where that slippery slope will lead.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Joseph
Sat Mar 17, 2012 9:15 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
Steve Chapman
Nov. `15
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author痴 Podcast
Walter Williams
Walter E. WilliamsUpdated 2 Dec 2015
Froma Harrop
Froma HarropUpdated 1 Dec 2015
Thomas Sowell
Thomas SowellUpdated 1 Dec 2015

25 Dec 2011 For Public Safety, a New Golden Age

24 Dec 2006 2006 Was Not a Banner Year For Freedom

10 Feb 2011 Why Obama Wants To Cut Corporate Taxes