Killing All the Female Babies

I'm trying to understand why one would be up in arms over this:

CAMPAIGNERS last night warned couples “not to play God” with a revolutionary home test that reveals an unborn baby’s sex at six weeks.

They fear the £189 kit will create a massive leap in abortions if would-be parents are not having the gender they want.

Michaela Aston, spokeswoman for the charity LIFE, said: “This test is very dangerous. It could lead to babies being aborted simply for being the ‘wrong’ sex.”

And Julia Millington, of the Prolife Alliance, said: “There is a real risk that some people would choose to abort babies of a certain gender.”

Now hold on for just one fornicating minute. I thought that pro-choicers believed that one's right to choose was sacrosanct. I guess it isn't.

I have long loathed the monikers "pro-choice" and "pro-life". The former applies to social libertarians such as Camille Paglia, but most pro-choicers are not libertarians. Whether it be campus speech codes or smoking bans, the left has no qualms with doing away with liberty for unpleasant things. It's just that baby butchering is more pleasant than second hand smoke--the horror. Pro-life is also misleading, though substantially less so. Liberals are quick to point out that if conservatives were really pro-life they would support the welfare state. This is idiotic of course, but the point is that pro-lifers should protect all life, which would render imperialistic wars immoral. Capital punishment too is inconsistent with the pro-life position, though less so than the left typically believes. It's not as if a convicted serial murder is identical to a wholly innocent unborn child after all. Still, I prefer the ephitet "anti-abortion". No, it's not particularly sexy, but it's very accurate. If abortion truly is a monstrosity, and it is, why not simply admit that it should be done away with? Did opponents of the ancient sacrifices to Moloch, believing anti-child sacrifice to be too divisive, declare themselves pro-life? Perhaps. Humanity hasn't really changed in thousands of years.

But back to the article. If choice is all that matters, women should be able to kill their children, sorry, terminate their pregnancies, for whatever reason they wish to. If abortion is acceptable for any reason at all I can't see how it can be unacceptable because the child's sex isn't right. If abortion is acceptable when the child may prove to be mentally disabled, why is it unacceptable when the child is merely a female?

For that is the obvious fear of the pro-choicers. While I, for one, would question the longterm viability of China's one child policy, where females are held to be anathema, it makes a certain amount of sense from a limited vantage point. If I were a Marxist, judging everything from a materialist basis, it makes more economic sense to have a man child than a woman child. Thus female children are routinely dropped down wells over in China when little brother comes along. All the better if we can expedite the process and avoid the messiness of toddlers and wells.
Chesterton once quipped that we should let all the babies be born and then we could drown the ones we do not like. Someone ought to alert the Chinese that he was trying to crack a joke, not offer a practical program.

It will be increasingly amusing to watch women argue that while they are all for choice, women should not be allowed to choose to dispose of future women. The position is wholly inconsistent of course, but it fits in with feminist theory, which has never made much sense. Remember too that as technology progresses, this process will become more exact. We are really not that far off from the age of designer babies, first for the rich and then for all--so long as we don't sterilize the undesirables. Let the Superman come forth and usher in an age of Peace.

Of course, if the number of men increase while the number of women dwindle, there are going to be an awful lot of single men running around. This won't help our goal of global peace. The single fellows will need something to do. It is not far-fetched to expect that men will go to war to take women from other lands or the enslavement of poorer women who will fulfill the sexual desires of the restless male populace. The feminists have likely seen their high-water mark, and I can't help but pity them somewhat for what seems to be the next wave on the horizon.