The Wall Street Journal seems to be publishing a lot of brainless editorials lately. Take The War Against Girls, for instance. Editorialist Jonathan V. Last writes, "Even more unexpectedly, the decision to abort baby girls is usually made by women—either by the mother or, sometimes, the mother-in-law."
Well, gosh. Really, what a shocker. Women in developing nations are more likely to decide to abort than their husbands, fathers, or boyfriends. Gee, I wonder why. Could it possibly be because women in developing nations actually know what a tough life their daughter might face? To the men, a girl might have sexual or economic uses (they can pimp her for money). The women think it through all the way; they know exactly what quality of life their little girl might face in Azerbaijan or China. They choose to abort with that knowledge in mind. They aren't thinking in terms of the big picture, or global economics. They are thinking in terms of their own situation.
Then Mr. Last has the hubris to write: "This is where choice leads. This is where choice has already led. Ms. Hvistendahl may wish the matter otherwise, but there are only two alternatives: Restrict abortion or accept the slaughter of millions of baby girls and the calamities that are likely to come with it."
Sure. Go ahead and make a global law that forbids abortion based on gender. You're going to create a lot of miserable little girls born into awful situations with no escape.
Abolish sexism first. THEN you'll have the right to forbid abortion based on gender.
Well, gosh. Really, what a shocker. Women in developing nations are more likely to decide to abort than their husbands, fathers, or boyfriends. Gee, I wonder why. Could it possibly be because women in developing nations actually know what a tough life their daughter might face? To the men, a girl might have sexual or economic uses (they can pimp her for money). The women think it through all the way; they know exactly what quality of life their little girl might face in Azerbaijan or China. They choose to abort with that knowledge in mind. They aren't thinking in terms of the big picture, or global economics. They are thinking in terms of their own situation.
Then Mr. Last has the hubris to write: "This is where choice leads. This is where choice has already led. Ms. Hvistendahl may wish the matter otherwise, but there are only two alternatives: Restrict abortion or accept the slaughter of millions of baby girls and the calamities that are likely to come with it."
Sure. Go ahead and make a global law that forbids abortion based on gender. You're going to create a lot of miserable little girls born into awful situations with no escape.
Abolish sexism first. THEN you'll have the right to forbid abortion based on gender.
