I've thought a lot about this issues too. Here's how I think of it:

Women should have the right to make their own reproductive choices, no matter what their motivations are.

There is a large instance of women choosing to abort female fetuses, because of, as you put it,"a cultural preference for boys".

This seems wrong somehow, but it is wrong to tell women that they can't choose their own reproductive paths. But the way I see it, the problem is not each individual choice, it is the aforementioned preference for boys. So basically, the problem is that the society values boys over girls, males over females. That is what we as feminists should work to alleviate.

In a lot of situations, that preference can come from the fact that there are limitations on how many children a given family can have, and on whether females can inherit and have the same types of rights as males. If we work to equalize things for women, then fewer of them will feel that having a female child is an unacceptable option, I think. But as long as they do, who am I to tell them that they're wrong about what's best for their lives?

also, the word feticide itself implies fetal rights, in my opinion. it equates abortion with murder, which I find to be a very problematic conflation in so many ways. I think that term indicates that the speaker you saw may have had a more anti-choice agenda, disguised as pro-woman.

You can agree with their right to terminate while disagreeing with their reasoning. But I think getting an abortion when one finds out she's having a girl might be more due to coercion than choice. How much of a right does she have to give birth to a girl if doing so would dramatically affect her lifestyle, social status, and ability to take care of her family (and ability for her kids to take care of her when she grows old)? Doesn't sound like reproductive rights to me. I think if you focus on that and on the inhospitable social climate for girls in these countries, then I don't think there's a conflict of interest.

And I second Kathryn's point on the word "feticide."

I would frame it as an issue of institutional sexism, personally.

If a culture truly saw women as being as valuable as men, baby girls would be just as valued as baby boys. If the culture is one that preferences male over female, and you have a limited number of children you may have, you will continue to abort female fetuses until you have at least your first boy, because in your culture the male child is much more valuable. It is still the woman's right to abort for whatever reason; however, such a practice as you describe could only come about as a result of a culture which systematically devalues women.

In that context, it has nothing to do with "fetal rights" and everything to do with simply another expression of how women are undervalued and seen as less in the society you're talking about. Since we, as feminists, believe that men and women must be equal in all things, how can we support such expression of patriarchal culture?

Problem solved. ;)

Do you have a problem with the abortion, or the reasons that cause it, and the culture that practically forces it?

There's nothing wrong with your knee-jerk reaction. It's natural, everyone does it. And you're doing just what you need to do, considering it and reconciling your views.

In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with the individual abortions. There is something wrong with the trend, and there's a whole lot wrong with a culture that values women so little that there are so many women aborting female fetuses.

From a libertarian perspective, there is no conflict whatsoever, because there is a big difference between what people should do and what they should be forced to do, and these two problems are on opposite sides of the distinction. Women are entitled to decide to abort for anyone reason, or no reason at all. Having accepted that does not by any means prevent a person from thinking that some decisions are better than others, and working to persuade women to choose different ones, in the same way that one might want to convince people to take care of their teeth without also believing in coercive dentistry.

If a fetus isn't a person and has no inherent right not to be aborted, then why should it matter whether it's being aborted for gender, race, health, or anything else? Is Pro-Choice now going to mean mandating a different list of circumstances under which abortion is allowable?

For me, the point isn't whether a fetus is a person or not so much as
institutional sexism is thriving.
If we can create more equality and lessen sexism in the world, female feticide will decline.

India actually has a law against learning the sex of the baby prior to birth because of this very problem, but the law is skirted all the time.

I do condemn sexual selection. It is wrong. I know Canada stopped allowing prospective parents to learn the sex of their unborn babies because of it, and I believe that there are far fewer ultrasound techs who will give "hints" in Canada.

These pregnancies aren't unwanted. They are terminated because something is "wrong" with the baby, and until female is no longer seen as "wrong," this kind of abortion is going to continue.

unti recently, i thought that there wasn't any total negative effect of aborting female fetuses. it does skew gender ratios, as it has in some parts of india and china, but i didn't think that meant anything. now some researchers and NGOs are discussing the potential effects, and although i don't know much about that, i plan to look it up. maybe the OP can share what the societal effects are.

my stance on this is that "female feticide" can't be banned. it has a to be the mother's decision. now of course we can guess that in a society where female fetuses are routinely aborted, mothers probably don't have much choice, but it's hard to limit reproductive freedoms legally based on that. giving women more recourse from abusive marriages may help reduce forced abortions.

my perceptions of abortion is india is this: the procedure isn't so much stigmatized as is pregnancy for unmarried women. married women are not stigmatized for abortions particularly. but for unmarried women, the choice to have a child is much more unavailable than abortions. she has the right to an abortion, but not a child. hinduism, the majority religion, is often not clear cut on any ethical issue, so it does not have the same impact as islam or catholicism. "personhood" for fetuses isn't a cultural phenomenon.

Basically, what Kathryn and Jadelyn said. A woman should be able to abort no matter what her motivations are; it's the reason why she would want to abort a female fetus - because girls are less valued - that needs to be changed.

I am completely addicted to a wonderful blog written by a woman who works at a Morgentaler clinic. She has an excellent post on sex selective abortion:

http://antichoiceantiawesome.blogspot.com/2008/04/finally-post-about-sex-selective.html

If you only have a problem with choosing male human fetus over female human fetus,isn't that discriminatory in some sense. Would it not be just as bigoted to prefer a female human fetus over a male human fetus?

I believe in most cases women are coerced by their husband to abort the pregancy if the gender of the human embryo/fetus is not the one preferred.

You do not leave the United States or Canada to encounter this kind of discrimination being practiced. Though it is most commom in ethnic minorities, it is not limited to their community.

yor bro ken

here is my take:

there is reproductive rights
and
there is eugenics and bulding of 'perfect' people.

if they cross paths, you don't have support that situation.

ethical pro-choice doctors often refuse to perform abortions under these circumstances or to 'sperm sort' for elective reasons.
many have also said in the future they won't abort non-heterosexual fetues or help make designer babies.
its no longer about reproductive rights in those cases.

Yeah, I look at it like this. It is unfortunate that they prefer boys. However, in about two generations of sexual selection, they will suddenly run out of women. And then their population will greatly decrease quite sharply. This will solve their overpopulation, and will mean that maybe the women who do exist will have food and shelter.

This is how the human race solved overpopulation before we had birth control, and they do not have access to birth control right now. Female infanticide reduces the population while male infanticide does not (one man can marry many women and have many children, the population is only reduced if there are fewer women to bear children). At least it's abortion instead of infanticide now.

My husband is Indian and my daughter is half Indian/half European descent, so this issue is very personal to me. Our daughter is our life but for many Indian families having a son is still priority one.

In Indian, parents “pray” for baby boys because men traditionally support their parents financially while the daughters are "lost" to the family when they marry (they’re considered members of their husband’s family). There’s something odd resulting from the sexist preference of male offspring in India and resulting abortions of female fetuses over the past few decades: twenty-something women are rarer than men and suddenly more "valuable." It's ironic but somehow feels like the appropriate comeuppance for the male-preferring people who've been aborting female fetuses. I sorta like the idea that these young Indian women are able to start being more choosy when picking husbands. The culture insists that everyone get married and that evaluating people based on how much money they have, how much education, what sort of job they have is appropriate when choosing a mate. These women can start making demands for more culturally valuable stuff. They can potentially hold out for a guy they like better than the first one offered.

Thanks to everyone who responded; your comments are really helping get a grip on what I think about this. There's a couple of you I want to respond to individually when I have the time.