Rahila Gupta thinks pro-choicers shouldn’t "make a fetish of choice" and defend sex-selection abortion. In her desire to prevent discrimination against unborn girls she uses some odd language coming from a pro-choicer.
We must be careful not to make a fetish of choice. If the technology allows and a woman wants a blue-eyed, blonde baby, do we support her because we are pro-choice? While we must be vigilant about the "pro-lifer"-infested waters, we must be prepared to refine our pro-choice position; it must be circumscribed by context. Approximately 60 million women are "missing" in India. The cultural reasons for this femicide do not magically disappear with migration. A girl's right to life has to be a basic tenet of any feminist position and cannot be compromised by an absolutist pro-choice narrative.
A girl’s right to life? An unborn girl’s right to life? Or only a unborn girl’s right to life when the parents know she’s a girl and don’t want a girl? When does this mysterious right to life appear for Gupta?
Gupta is certainly right about pro-choicers needing to refine their pro-choice position because Gupta’s position makes no sense.