Wait, so sex-selective abortion is totally OK? Thanks, I'll forward this to people who value diversity.

That's a typo. I meant to write, "It's certainly true that the disproportionate abortion rate for female fetuses is upsetting."

I'm correcting it now.

There are a lot of issues here, the main thing that will help curb sex selective abortions is if the society places value on girls. Instead of viewing them as a burden.

How long before this type of legislation is introduced in the U.S.?

I agree with just about everything here, Ann. Thanks for the post.

Sakura, I'm interested to see how attitudes in some Asian countries towards girls change in the next few decades. The sex-selecive abortions in China have resulted in some towns that have a 1.5:1 ratio of boys to girls. In Japan the birth rate is plumeting becuase the traditional attitude is that once women get married and have children, that they exist only to serve their husbands and children. A lot of women would rather be single and childless than subservient. Hopefully, faced with the stark reality that some of these traditional views on women are actively culturally destructive, attitudes will begin to change.

I'm wary of any legislation that is made for women's "own good" or similar reasoning. Definitely something to keep an eye on.

In India, though, you have centuries of women needing dowries to fight. From what I understand, there is still many elements of that, especially among the families that can't afford it. It's difficult to change cultures, especially from an outside culture. I think the only way to affect real change is for actual Indians to work on these attitudes, and probably to work on poverty issues*. I am not sure how much I as an American can do to change anything.

*And this very well may be going on, I have no idea what movements there are to work on these issues.

"Many Indian parents prefer a boy as he is seen as a future breadwinner who will take care of them in their old age, while a girl is perceived to be a burden for whom a large dowry will have to paid at the time of marriage."

Glad my parents didn't live in a rural and poor community in India when I was born. Here I am, going to school for a degree with enormously high earning potential, and I would have hated for them to rule this out as a possibility while I was still in the womb or a newborn. Someone should tell them that you can't really tell which children, if any, are going to be a burden, and which are going to be able to take care of you in your old age. Though I suppose its easy enough to predict if you only send your sons to school.... Sigh...

On a related note, I was actually blown away by CNN.com's cover story recently on Indian widows. For one thing, I had no idea the problem was so extensive, and to think that children would basnish their own mother because her spouse passed away is unbelievable. I was also amazed that it made the top story position (this also happened with a female circumcision story in the past week).

Genny
I'm wary too, because how will this truly solve anything? I'm glad Jen pointed the issues of dowries, the practice has been illegal for about forty years now but there are families who are still demanding dowries. Women in India are beginning to speak out against this.

But at any rate, I too hope there will changing attitudes.

...because there's no way that anyone considering a termination for sex reasons would just eschew early prenatal care to avoid registering their pregnancy, right?

...and there's no way underground ultrasound offices might pop up along the way, right?

Hmm. No, wait, those things both sound pretty fucking plausible.

Also, does this means that they'll be investigating or questioning the women who miscarry after registering a pregnancy?

I'm very against using abortion as a sex selection tool. Hell, I'm not even a big fan of using PGD or Microsort as a sex selection tool (unless, of course, you have a sex-linked disorder in your family, in which case I'm very sorry and good luck), but this plan just seems...flawed.

I agree that improving the social standing/value of women in society is a better way to decrease sex selection than trying to legislate around it. Given enough time and motivation, people will frequently find a way around a law.

"But the way to curb abortion of female fetuses because of their gender is to work on improving gender equality throughout society. It's not to create an agency to ensure women are choosing abortions for 'acceptable and valid' reasons."

I don't think that's necessarily true. If the vast majority of abortions in India are because the fetus is female, then maybe this will work. It would need to come along with comprehensive women's rights and opportunities, but it could work nonetheless.

If abortions are ONLY used to kill female fetuses, then abortion doesn't do anything for women's liberation. All it does it reduce the number of women.

These women aren't getting abortions because a pregnancy infringes upon their lives, they're getting abortions because the fetus is female. They are entirely separate issues.

Reproductive rights are not black and white. They are evolving just like the technology that allows them. They will vary depending on culture context.

Your missing the context of the argument. We look at registering pregnancies as an invasion of privacy and a hindrance on women's rights. But the people promoting this registry (including UNICEF, by the way) look at as a way of encouraging baby girls. In a country where "10 million girls were killed in the last 20 years", we ought to seriously consider all possibilities to cease the killing.

Sakura, I'm interested to see how attitudes in some Asian countries towards girls change in the next few decades. The sex-selecive abortions in China have resulted in some towns that have a 1.5:1 ratio of boys to girls.

I'm interested, too. Economic theory would suggest that as something becomes more scarce, it tends to become more valuable. I've also heard that this is actually happening in India and other places. You can't demand and expect to get much of a dowry when you're one of several would-be husbands competing for a potential bride. (I've also heard that the benefits of the relative scarcity of potential brides tend to go to the father of the bride, but at least being seen as a "valued" commodity is a lesser evil than being considered a liability.)

Won't this just drive up the female infanticide rate?

"Wait, so sex-selective abortion is totally OK? Thanks, I'll forward this to people who value diversity."

So, families which abuse daughter-in-laws are making fewer granddaughters to abuse too. Why complain about this? One might as well complain about a priest who abuses altar boys not making sons of his own to abuse too.

"Also, does this means that they'll be investigating or questioning the women who miscarry after registering a pregnancy?"

Isn't that what happened in Romania for a while?

"But the way to curb abortion of female fetuses because of their gender is to work on improving gender equality throughout society."

Helping people escape and evade domestic violence would definitely be key.

First, it's ridiculous to protect female fetuses more than women and girls.

Second, what if a woman or girl pregnant with a female fetus does want to give birth to a daughter but her family's pushing her to abort? Escaping that family may be the only way to avoid abuse.

Meanwhile, next door in Bangladesh this hit the news today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6897188.stm

"Classmates of a 13-year-old Bangladeshi school girl due to enter a forced marriage have united to stop the ceremony going ahead, police say.

"Around 50 pupils in the town of Satkhira took to the streets to demand that Habiba Sultana's wedding be called off, they say..."

How many people will approve of these classmates? How many will condemn them because one more baby might have been born next year if Sultana did get raped? How many will condemn them because one more baby girl might have been born next year if Sultana did get raped?

"So, families which abuse daughter-in-laws are making fewer granddaughters to abuse too. Why complain about this? One might as well complain about a priest who abuses altar boys not making sons of his own to abuse too."

I'm not sure what you're saying here, but I think you misinterpreted what I was saying: the values of abortion rights and diversity, especially in the context of Indian gender and marriage politics, are mutually exclusive.

And it's happening here, too; the vast majority of fetuses diagnosed with Down syndrome are promptly aborted - what does this say to people with Down syndrome? They're not good enough?

I'm interested, too. Economic theory would suggest that as something becomes more scarce, it tends to become more valuable. I've also heard that this is actually happening in India and other places. You can't demand and expect to get much of a dowry when you're one of several would-be husbands competing for a potential bride. (I've also heard that the benefits of the relative scarcity of potential brides tend to go to the father of the bride, but at least being seen as a "valued" commodity is a lesser evil than being considered a liability.)

Actually this is happening in China, but not as most people would desire. The Chinese are now capturing and buying North Korean women to force them to be prostitutes or wives for the surplus of Chinese men. The women's "price" has gone up, but instead of a better treatment for women there's now an increase in prostitution and sex slave trade.

Choice is choice. Even if we don't agree with the choice, the choice has to be left up to the person who's body it's about.

As horrible as sex-selective abortion is, we first have to fix the circumstances of women and girls, we can't just go in and start regulating pregnancies, that just makes things worse. What woman would want to bring another woman into a world that sucks for women? You fix the massive problems and inequalities facing women and they'll no longer abort (or be forced to abort) female fetuses. India's going about this backwards and it's just going to make things worse.

"I'm not sure what you're saying here, but I think you misinterpreted what I was saying:"

The post was about a trend which includes lots of families that abuse girls not producing more girls to abuse. You sure seemed to be complaining about that.

"the values of abortion rights and diversity, especially in the context of Indian gender and marriage politics, are mutually exclusive."

Since when are the values of diversity merely about breeding one's favorite demographic group as fast as possible?

"And it's happening here, too; the vast majority of fetuses diagnosed with Down syndrome are promptly aborted - what does this say to people with Down syndrome? They're not good enough?"

No, it's saying that the women getting the abortions don't want to give more people Down's Syndrome by giving birth. I bet they also don't go around sneezing on other people when they have colds.

"The women's 'price' has gone up, but instead of a better treatment for women there's now an increase in prostitution and sex slave trade."

No surprise given how prices usually work. When the price of tomatoes goes up it empowers the tomato sellers, not the tomatoes. When the price of your labor goes up it empowers you, not the work you do.

"Choice is choice. Even if we don't agree with the choice, the choice has to be left up to the person who's body it's about.

"As horrible as sex-selective abortion is, we first have to fix the circumstances of women and girls, we can't just go in and start regulating pregnancies, that just makes things worse. What woman would want to bring another woman into a world that sucks for women?"

Exactly. Not all of us are bent on outbreeding the enemy, after all.

"That's why UNICEF is on board, saying it 'would enormously help promote institutional deliveries and strengthen and expand the safe maternity scheme.'"

I've kept up with this blog and most of the time I agree with the statements made, or don't disagree enough to post. However, reading that made me very upset. I intend to become a midwife, and the implication that an institutionalized birth is safer for ANYONE involved (except in emergencies, which is what hospitals are for) makes me wonder if you've ever seen the statistics. I was very disappointed in the casually mentioned prejudice and assumption that everyone else reading the blog seems to have overlooked.

"No, it's saying that the women getting the abortions don't want to give more people Down's Syndrome by giving birth."

Quick lesson in causality: Down's syndrome comes before birth - thus being the exact reason said fetuses are aborted; I'm not sure if this unclear to you, but fetuses with Down syndrome don't inherit the disorder while coming out the birth canal...

And even then, the means don't justify the ends; people with Down's, unlike what other cultures consider undesirable (gays, women, etc.) - don't have an advocate - it's still seen as OK to abort because, hey, they have Down's, and killing them is much better than having them, say, exist, and lead a life.

If one considers Down's, say, or cerebral palsy, to be on the same level as homosexuality - given present abortion rights - how are we not on the way to the Final Solution? Genocide's not ontologically defined by the nature of the aggressor (specifically in this matter the number of aggressors) but by who is the victim...

Perhaps, I think, the only reason abortion is utilized is because it's inherently understood that it's human, that it's a person - and if it's not, if it's really not, then why have an abortion?

It's weird, then, that feminism is the driving advocate of reproductive rights, given that abortion here most certainly, legally, seeks to abort largely female fetuses...

"I bet they also don't go around sneezing on other people when they have colds."

Somehow, call me crazy, I don't equate witholding airladen mucus projectile with abortion - I apologize for not seeing the connection between the common cold and Down's...also, I apologize for making the radical assumption that abortion, especially modern abortion that favors society's 'desirables', is inherently eugenic.

I'm so sorry.

Joe, first of all, I have a serious problem with you equating a genetic anomaly causing mental retardation, extensive heart problems, and thyroid dysfunction, among other problems, to the extent that parents, usually the mothers, will end up being lifelong caretakers, with being female. The two conditions just aren't similar. There is nothing inherently unhealthy about having a vagina. People with Down's Syndrome do have serious health problems.

Second of all, forcing a woman to continue to endure a pregnancy against her will is anti-feminist. She doesn't have to justify her decision to you, me, or anybody else. Whether she does not want to continue a pregnancy because the fetus is female, or has Down's Syndrome, or because she's having second thoughts about what it means to become a mother, doesn't matter. Exercising control over one's own body does not make her an "aggressor," and genocide can't be committed against beings that are not born. For you to compare, by your use of that word, abortion to the Final Solution is simply appalling, and is pretty much a Godwin. For future reference, here are some ways you can tell the difference between the Nazis' Final Solution and women's decisions to abort a Down's Syndrome fetus:

1) Jews were not subsisting wholly off the bodies of Gentiles; fetuses subsist off the bodies of pregnant women, which means that said women get to decide when they want their bodies used in this manner and when they do not. Women are not obliged to allow their uteruses to be used for the good of the Down's Syndrome population, the state, or the Cause (any cause). Women are not obliged to accept any fetus at all, for any reason at all.

2) The Final Solution was state-mandated; abortion is a personal decision. While decisions about abortion do indeed take place within a complex web of social pressures, and true reproductive freedom would involve freeing women from most if not all of those pressures, comparing the way in which individual women consider those pressures and make the best possible decision to themselves to a state program mandating mass murder is simply not valid.

I think, the only reason abortion is utilized is because it's inherently understood that it's human, that it's a person - and if it's not, if it's really not, then why have an abortion?

Because the woman doesn't want to carry through the pregnancy. End of story. No entity, no matter how human, has the right to use another's body against her will.

"Joe, first of all, I have a serious problem with you equating a genetic anomaly causing mental retardation, extensive heart problems, and thyroid dysfunction, among other problems, to the extent that parents, usually the mothers, will end up being lifelong caretakers, with being female."

I didn't mean to come across that way - what I was saying is that abortion tends, especially in sexist cultures, to most affect 'undesirables' (in India, it's females!)

"Second of all, forcing a woman to continue to endure a pregnancy against her will is anti-feminist. She doesn't have to justify her decision to you, me, or anybody else. Whether she does not want to continue a pregnancy because the fetus is female, or has Down's Syndrome, or because she's having second thoughts about what it means to become a mother, doesn't matter. Exercising control over one's own body does not make her an "aggressor,""

I'm not saying women are incubators - they're not... - but my perspective is that while every woman has the right to get out of a pregnancy, I am not of the belief that she retains the right to end the fetus' life. With new technologies emerging, it'll become much easier to transplant the fetus to another mother, or an artificial womb - or is that anti-feminist?

"genocide can't be committed against beings that are not born."

Have you looked up the definition of genocide, perhaps perused the various stages? The ENTIRE idea of genocide is that the aggressor - Hitler, for instance - does not consider the victims "fully human", and that's why Stage 7 of genocide is called 'extermination', because it's not murder if it's not human, right? So if abortion isn't murder because fetuses aren't fully human, why isn't extermination murder?

And Godwin's Law! My favorite, actually - but I do think it applies, considering the metaethical concerns of abortion.

"Because the woman doesn't want to carry through the pregnancy. End of story. No entity, no matter how human, has the right to use another's body against her will."

So now it's human? I'm just going to speculate that, based on the nature of this site, and especially the list of political links on the left side of this blog, you're like me in a certain way, that being anti-death penalty. So it's weird that inhabiting a woman's body is retaliated against by specifically giving the fetus the death penalty...and I think this ties back to the increasing likelihood of fetal transplants of artificial wombs - if pregnancy can be ended without the death of the fetus, is it 'anti-feminist' to suggest it being illegal to needlessly kill the fetus?

Can I say that I find comparing cerebral palsy with downs somewhat odd?

I believe it is the right of a woman to abort just because she wants to - not much of a "just" when carrying to term either means committing to parenthood (something more people should seriously think about) or the fairly traumatising experiences of pregnancy, birth, then giving your child away.

But re: cerebral palsy vs downs, downs is MUCH less debilitating than cerebral palsy! It's still a HUGE commitment to bear a child with downs, but they are capable of being an independent adult, or at least a fairly happy and physically capable one.

With cerebral palsy, you have a fully functional human brain in a completely incapable and degenerating body. Good god, that is a big difference!

"'No, it's saying that the women getting the abortions don't want to give more people Down's Syndrome by giving birth.'

"Quick lesson in causality: Down's syndrome comes before birth - thus being the exact reason said fetuses are aborted; I'm not sure if this unclear to you, but fetuses with Down syndrome don't inherit the disorder while coming out the birth canal..."

It's not a separate person with Down's unless it's born and stops being part of the woman's or girl's body. Therefore, if she doesn't give birth then she hasn't given someone else Down's.

"I apologize for making the radical assumption that abortion, especially modern abortion that favors society's 'desirables', is inherently eugenic."

It's only as inherently eugenic as contraceptives and abstinence are.

For example, think of all the people your race's population would gain if you make sure your daughters all give birth as often as possible. Your race's population won't grow as fast if your daughters are allowed to stay virgins for a while after their first periods.

"It's only as inherently eugenic as contraceptives and abstinence are."

Not in the way it's being used now - Down's? Aborted. Female in India? Aborted. Because of the nature of legal abortion, and the ability to screen for fetal defects and characteristics, like gender, modern abortion is becoming less about the woman and her reasons, and more about the problems with the fetus - that, if it were something different (free of Down's, other conditions; in India, being male) it would not be aborted.

It's the exact definition of eugenics: controlled breeding in pursuit of the perfect race.

"modern abortion is becoming less about the woman and her reasons, and more about the problems with the fetus - that, if it were something different (free of Down's, other conditions; in India, being male) it would not be aborted."

In other words, it's less about the woman and her reasons...and more about her reasons. When a woman's reason for abortion is not wanting to pass on a trait, it's still her reason.

"...It's the exact definition of eugenics: controlled breeding in pursuit of the perfect race."

Forcing people to produce even more girls and Down's patients than they want to by banning abortion is also controlled breeding in pursuit of the perfect race.

"modern abortion is becoming less about the woman and her reasons, and more about the problems with the fetus - that, if it were something different (free of Down's, other conditions; in India, being male) it would not be aborted."

In other words, it's less about the woman and her reasons...and more about her reasons. When a woman's reason for abortion is not wanting to pass on a trait, it's still her reason.

"...It's the exact definition of eugenics: controlled breeding in pursuit of the perfect race."

Forcing people to produce even more girls and Down's patients than they want to by banning abortion is controlled breeding in pursuit of the perfect race.

Right. Because "I don't want to bear and raise a child with Down's Syndrome" means exactly the same thing as "Nobody with Down's Syndrome is allowed to exist in our Perfect Race!"

Joe, you seem to have a real problem understanding that women's uteruses are not a communal resource. Women are not required to sacrifice themselves on the alter of What You Think Is Righteous. Her reasons don't have to be good enough for you. They only have to be good enough for her. Forced breeding is immoral and misogynist.

"Joe, you seem to have a real problem understanding that women's uteruses are not a communal resource. Women are not required to sacrifice themselves on the alter of What You Think Is Righteous."

Or on the altar of What Joe Thinks Is A Perfectly Diverse Race.

"Her reasons don't have to be good enough for you. They only have to be good enough for her. Forced breeding is immoral and misogynist."

Forced breeding is immoral, misogynist, and a lot more eugenic than allowing each woman and girl to choose for herself whether or not to give birth.

Joe and Fenriswolf, Down's Syndrome is a disorder that almost always has mental retardation present, and, no, most of them cannot be independent adults and hold down jobs. Most of them require a caregiver their entire lives, generally these "caregivers" could care less. Any person with Down’s Syndrome (or any other mental or physical disability) deserve the best care, services, and treatment possible (all though, they don’t often get it), but, well Mina (with credit to EG) says it perfectly:
“Forced breeding is immoral, misogynist, and a lot more eugenic than allowing each woman and girl to choose for herself whether or not to give birth.� PERIOD.

Fenriswolf: Not all folks with CP have a "completely incapable body." Likewise, not all CP suffers have a “fully functioning brain.� Also, CP is non-progressive and, therefore, not degenerative. You’re comparing a neurological disorder to a genetic disorder, both with different symptoms and manifestations. It’s kind of like apples and oranges, as is comparing Down’s with gender.

Imagine the how the quality of life for children with these disorders (hell, for ALL children for that matter) would improve if they were all wanted, cared for, and loved.

"Joe, you seem to have a real problem understanding that women's uteruses are not a communal resource."

I never said they were, did I? But because abortion is not JUST ending a pregnancy, but deliberately ending the life of a person, I find fault with it.

If fetal transplants are perfected, if artificial wombs are made a reality, is it anti-feminist of me to think that abortion would be needless?

I don't think any woman should endure an unwanted pregnancy, but I also don't think that it's OK for a fetus to be a subjected to an abortion, to die.

Joe,
You realize that there is currently no such thing as artificial wombs, etc. so there is really no point in derailing this post in favor of discussing the ethics of this hypothetical alternative to abortion.
Also, its not genocide until the state starts requiring that all pregnant women be tested for fetuses with down syndrome and then forcing the termination of all fetuses who test positive. A woman should never be forced to carry or abort a pregnancy. It should be her choice. And to be pro-choice is to support that statement.
Finally, I'm hesitant to endorse this legislation in India. Until women are more equally valued in Indian society, I don't see what good will come of forcing women to give birth to baby girls. It seems like it will result in many more cases of female infanticide and abuse, which I find far more problematic than sex-based abortion. Its a terrible and complicated situation. Maybe the new laws will lead to positive change. I'm sure the people in charge of the initaitives know far better than I do what is needed right now. I hope so.

I value the born over the unborn, so I'd rather see more abortions than more infanticide, child abuse, and battery of women who produce daughters. I'd _really_ prefer a situation where daughters were uniformly valued as much as sons, but this legislation does nothing to change that. Most of the women who have the money for sex selective abortion now will have still the money and influence to get around the registry. Those that were on the edge will just switch to less safe methods, passive (or active) infanticide, or generally drop off the map for prenatal care. It's not like sex selection isn't already illegal in India.
Simultaneously a reproductive status registry is ripe for abuse (let alone being unreasonably intrusive). I'm ashamed of UNICEF for their position on this.
On a potentially more cheerful note - I wonder why the government has been attempting to address sex-selection issues in the first place. Is it an isolated effort by a few would-be humanitarians? A response to social change already in progress? A sop to outside pressure? A couple of people looking at the negative effects of serious sex imbalance on political stability and public health?

Actually this is happening in China, but not as most people would desire. The Chinese are now capturing and buying North Korean women to force them to be prostitutes or wives for the surplus of Chinese men. The women's "price" has gone up, but instead of a better treatment for women there's now an increase in prostitution and sex slave trade.

Given how desperate people are to get out of North Korea (the North Korea/China border is turning into another Berlin Wall) I don't know which fate is worse for the North Korean women.

"A woman should never be forced to carry or abort a pregnancy. It should be her choice. And to be pro-choice is to support that statement."

Exactly.

"I value the born over the unborn, so I'd rather see more abortions than more infanticide, child abuse, and battery of women who produce daughters. I'd _really_ prefer a situation where daughters were uniformly valued as much as sons, but this legislation does nothing to change that."

I agree. Here's some other Indian legislation (in the state government of Andhra Pradesh) that is trying to change that:

http://www.hindu.com/2005/03/09/stories/2005030909320600.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4333159.stm

"Simultaneously a reproductive status registry is ripe for abuse (let alone being unreasonably intrusive)."

When it includes dictating who can abort which pregnancy of hers and who cannot, it's incredibly intrusive. Such a system would be farming people, the way regular farmers selectively breed each generation of crops and cattle. That's about as eugenic as it gets.

"A couple of people looking at the negative effects of serious sex imbalance on political stability and public health?"

OTOH, don't some societies manage to be unstable and unhealthy even with a 50-50 sex balance? Some people who think more single men = more violence sure seem to feel "they wouldn't beat up people if they had wives to beat up instead."

Fenriswolf,

Not all cases of Down's syndrome are created equal: the severity of the syndrome depends on, AFAIK, the amount of genetic material actually triplicated (when it should only be duplicated) -- which I guess you could tell pre-natally, and also, presumably genetic background, etc.

Cerebral Palsy is an even more heterogeneous set of syndromes. Some people with CP are quite disabled. In others, CP isn't even detected until mid-life (although earlier detection could have helped out quite a bit). One of the most successful door-to-door salespeople ever had CP (they made a movie about this) -- so some people with certain forms of CP certainly can get around! ;)

Mina - thanks for the links! It will be interesting to see how these measures fare, and in the meantime I have a LONG list of questions about the economy and culture of Andhra Pradesh to look into. There are some potentially interesting parallels to early 20th century France, but I don't know if they really apply.

Re. sex imbalance and population unrest:
There are some studies (whose applicability to India I certainly can't really evaluate) showing sex imbalance as an aggravating factor in a number of times and places, but it's certainly not a simple or certain relationship. On the other hand, since the actual effects of sex imbalance have less effect on public policy than the perceived effects of sex-imbalance, for understanding government processes, the question may be distressingly moot! ;)

Re. Joe:

"I'm not saying women are incubators - they're not... - but my perspective is that while every woman has the right to get out of a pregnancy, I am not of the belief that she retains the right to end the fetus' life. With new technologies emerging, it'll become much easier to transplant the fetus to another mother, or an artificial womb - or is that anti-feminist?"

I think that's perfectly feminist and I share your opinion.

Birth control and abortions developed as a result of some people wanting the technology. Those people had various reasons for wanting it.

The technology (of birth control and abortion) in its self is not feminist, but our application of it is. When we use it to provide women choices and the option to control their bodies we're being feminist. When we use it to reduce the female population, that is not being feminist.

Yes, there is some overlap. If a woman wants an abortion for whatever reason, (the fetus is female, she believes the fetus is an alien, she was raped, she doesn't want to be pregnant, she thinks she'll lose her job, she can't provide for more children...) she should be allowed to have the abortion.

But as feminists, we must realize that many of the reasons women choose abortion are just as or more oppressive than a world without legal abortion. We can't get stuck on the repo rights fight all the time. We've got to dig a little deeper.

Have you looked up the definition of genocide, perhaps perused the various stages? The ENTIRE idea of genocide is that the aggressor - Hitler, for instance - does not consider the victims "fully human", and that's why Stage 7 of genocide is called 'extermination', because it's not murder if it's not human, right? So if abortion isn't murder because fetuses aren't fully human, why isn't extermination murder?

Your admonition that others should check the definition of genocide, with which you assume they are not familiar, would be less out of place if you didn't commit one of the bigger crimes against history the forced birth movement has committed in recent years. Hitler didn't encourage women to get abortions. He forcibly and brutally had sterilisations and abortions performed on women who did not meet his criteria. How this can be compared to a woman deciding that she wants to terminate her pregnancy escapes me, though it might be nice to refrain from trivialising a genocide that affected the families of some of us here.

BTW, speaking of people choosing whether or not to pass on traits, this article may be interesting:

http://www.slate.com/id/2149854/

Why do we still assume that institutional deliveries are better than home deliveries? This might be true in area with poor water quality and sanitation opportunities, but in developed coutries it is no less safe to deliver a baby at home than in an institution. In fact, your chances of being poked, prodded, and cut unnecessarily, leading to longer recovery times and higher risk of infection, are much higher in a medical institution where childbirth is viewed as unatural and inherently dangerous (and the mother becomes a passive "patient" who must be handled by the medical personnel who deliver the baby while the mother does nothing...). And yet the myth that it's safer to have your baby extracted from your body in a hospital rather than giving birth at home still remains, and is largely unchallenged. It's a sad example of the triumph of western patriarchal medicine.