Wednesday, May 30, 2012

No matter how evil, trivial, stupid or banal

One of the ironies of the idea that abortion is pro-women is that unborn females, globally speaking, are killed at much higher rates than that of unborn males. But that doesn't happen in America--or does it?

Roberts quotes one woman who got pregnant with a boy after having two girls. The woman says flatly: "If the third one was going to be a girl, then I would say probably I would have terminated."

Should that abortion be allowed? And if legal intervention in such cases is unwise, should we do something short of that? Should schools teach that aborting girls is wrong? Should doctors counsel couples not to do it? Should community leaders speak out against it? The last president called for a culture of life. Should this president call for a culture of respect for women?

What about purveyors of sex selection? Roberts notes that at least one assisted reproduction provider, the Fertility Institutes , offers sex selection and "has unabashedly advertised its services in Indian- and Chinese-language newspapers in the United States." (The company has also promoted and withdrawn an offer to select embryos for " eye color, hair color and complexion .") This form of sex selection takes place when the offspring are tiny, dish-bound embryos, not fetuses. The clinic's medical director, Dr. Jeffrey Steinberg, says the practice is "not harming anyone." Is he right? Should he be allowed to continue peddling sex selection (as he does in this video ) to Asian-Americans? And if it's fine to advertise this service at the embryonic stage, why not at the fetal stage?

Absolutists on both sides need to think carefully. If you're pro-life, how far are you willing to go in regulating abortion? If you're pro-choice, how far are you willing to go in leaving it unregulated?

Please note that that Saletan piece, complete with statistics about the rise in sex-selection abortions in America, is from 2009--so, despite what pro-aborts say, the idea that this focus on sex-selection abortions is a manufactured controversy is just plain hooey. It's real, and it's going to increase in America as it has everywhere else across the globe.

But Democrats seem to think that efforts to ban sex-selection abortions are just part of the "war on women." Unborn females don't count, so long as their mothers are free to commit gendercide:

Democrats in Congress peddled a curious reason for opposing a ban on sex-selection abortions that target girl babies with abortion because they are not boy parents may prefer. They said the ban was anti-woman and part of the so-called “War on Women” Republicans are allegedly waging.

During today’s debate on the Congressional bill to ban sex-selection abortions, Michigan Democrat John Conyers said the ban on sex-selection abortions “tramples the rights of women.”

“It limits a woman’s right to choose and jeopardizes her access to safe, legal medical care,” he claimed.

See, if you're a Democrat, a woman's right to choose includes her right to choose to slaughter all of her female offspring and raise only the males. Yeah, that makes sense. Because isn't the elimination of female children a true feminist goal?

Republicans see things a bit differently:

Congressman Chris Smith, a New Jersey Republican, drove the point home about how and why the bill is pro-woman.

“For most of us, Mr. Speaker, “it’s a girl” is cause for enormous joy, happiness and celebration. But in many countries—including our own—it can be a death sentence. Today, the three most dangerous words in China and India are: it’s a girl. We can’t let that happen here,” he explained. “By now most people know that the killing of baby girls by abortion or at birth is pervasive in China due to the One Child policy and a preference for sons. China and India are “missing” tens of millions of daughters.”

What the Republicans need to realize, apparently, is that women aren't truly free unless they are free to kill off all of their unborn daughters. So sacrosanct to the Left is the "right" of women to kill every single embryo or fetus from conception until birth for any reason whatsoever, no matter how evil, trivial, stupid or banal, that they don't even care if they are supporting the killing of millions upon millions of unborn women.

UPDATE: The US House of Representatives has rejected the idea of protecting unborn women from being killed for the crime of being female; it is still legal to kill your unborn girls to prove what a great feminist you are. I'm sure the harpies at Planned Parenthood are celebrating with their usual cackling rituals.

1 comment:

Annie said...

Why do we always assume that sex selection abortions are of females? In the US today (outside of certain ethnic groups) females are preferred. I can't find the cites but I've read that the fertility clinics that allow sex selection find that their clients overwhelmingly prefer girls.

Back when I was pregnant I happened on a site about gender preferences. Apparently there is some doctor who wrote a book about how you can increase your odds of having a particular sex child. There was a forum entitled Gender Disappointment where mothers-to-be complained that they were pregnant with the wrong gender. In almost every post I read the woman was complaining about a son instead of a daughter.