Sexism Made Private, Quick, and Easy!

Yep, you heard it, folks. There’s an all-new at-home pregnancy test that not only tells you if you’re pregnant…it tells you if you have a girl or a boy as early as seven weeks.

Used just to satisfy your curiosity (some people want to know what they’re having, others would rather be surprised), there is nothing wrong with such tests. I’m not dissing science (I love it myself). But the negative consequences of such tests are unsettling.



Not exactly relevant, but it made me giggle.



I consider myself a “mild” feminist, meaning that I’m all for equality for women, all for women having careers, all for motherhood, all against abortions, and I don’t believe right-wing men are trying to take over the world. But you don’t have to be a feminist—or even female--to be disgusted by sex-selective abortions.

(All following gender ratios and percentage estimates from here.)

Biologically, it is more likely to have a boy than a girl. The ratio is roughly, boys to girls, 105 boys for every 100. I have no problem with this. If nothing else, this means that if all girls wanted to get married, they could, while some boys would get left out. (Sorry, guys.) In other parts of the world however, the ratios are different, because boys are considered more desirable than girls, because when they are married, the girls go live with the boy’s family, while the boy will take care of his parents in their old age. The huge difference in the following ratios, boys to girls, is (disregarding the biological “inequality”) because of sex-selective abortions.

China: 120 to 100 (Some places 135 to 100)

India: 107.3 to 100 (Some places 120.7 to 100)

And here is a direct quote from that website, because they explain it better than I could:

“[Douglas] Almond and [Lena] Edlund examined the ratio of boys to girls among US children born to Chinese, Korean, and Indian parents. For the first children of these Asian-American families, the sex ratio was the normal 1.05-to-1. But when the first baby is a girl, the odds of the second being a boy rose to 1.17-to-1. After two sisters, the likelihood of the third being a son leaped to 1.51-to-1.”

I don’t have anything against Asian or Indian people. But needing a boy is kind of rooted in their culture. And therefore so is sex-selective abortion.

That was a long introduction leading up to one point. Abortions are much more common in the first trimester than they are later in the pregnancy. They decrease as the babies get older, because the procedures get more complicated and more expensive. So the women who would not be able to abort their child because they have to wait to find out the gender, and then by the time they find out it’s too late for them to get an abortion, will not be able to get abortions. (Of course, girl babies are no more precious than boy babies. And it’s possible to do sex-selective abortions on boys…just less common.)

These tests have created an interesting dilemma for pro-abortion feminists. Because the women should have the right to choose…to kill their baby girls until they get a boy. Because abortions are always right…unless…maybe…they’re intentionally killing just girls? But, according to them, abortion isn’t immoral, and the babies aren’t people yet. So why should they care?

Because of this awkward contradiction of their beliefs, most pro-abortioners (who are also mostly pro-feminist) have responded with…nothing.

And when they do respond, they don’t address this contradiction.

I believe the word you’re looking for, Pro-Feminist-Pro-Abortion people, is, quite simply, “uh-oh”.

PS: I'm extending the days to vote in the polls to the right. Take heed: if I don't get any dissenting votes, I'll go ahead and post those posts. So if you don't want to see them, be sure to tell me. :)

All images found via Google Images. No copyright infringement intended.