Pro-choicers uncomfortable about sex-selection abortion, but can’t find a solution

An ultra-feminist US magazine called Ms. has recently published an article in which they lament about sex-selection abortions in India which are resulting in a shortage of girls. Families prefer to have boys, in part because many of them live on a farm and they think boys make for better labour.

Albert Mohler has written a very thoughtful article about it. I highly recommend it.

Ms. advocates that women have the right to an abortion for whatever reason they choose. So when confronted with this sex-selection abortion problem, they can’t seem to find a realistic solution. They embark in some mental contortionism, like a demon drowning in holy water. They can’t possibly propose any limits to abortion. So here’s the nonesense they came up with (try not to laugh):

The article points with hope to a campaign led by the government. “Save the Girl Child” is an effort to “save girls.” How? By addressing the morality of abortion? Of course not. Instead, the campaign will include fashion shows, special birthday cards for girls, doctors who will argue against sex-selection abortions, and “government schemes offering cash incentives to families to raise girls.” (Source)

Fashion shows and birthday cards… Yeah, that’ll do the trick.

I’m quite shocked that they appear to endorse having doctors argue against sex-selection abortions. Abortion, after all, is the sum of all good for these feminist types.

Mr.Mohler hits the nail on the head in his dissection of the schizophrenia pervading the Ms. article:

Their feminist ideology does not even allow them to acknowledge that sex-selection abortions are perfectly legal in the United States, and that feminists have insisted that any woman has a right to an abortion at any time for any reason or for no stated reason at all. The pro-abortion ideology is so extreme that any opposition to the targeting of girls by sex-selection abortion is undermined by the movement’s enthusiasm for unfettered abortion rights.

The moral bankruptcy of their situation is revealed by the tepid language employed in the article and the lack of moral outrage. But how can Ms. muster any genuine outrage about sex-selection abortions in India when it has demanded unfettered abortion access in our own country? It cannot, and it does not. This monumental tragedy is described only as “the problem.”

This is the only logical outcome for moral relativism. When you have no absolutes, when you don’t build your ideas and logic on unwavering principles, sooner or later you get brutal self-contradictions that make you look like a fool.

Canada also has such lunacy. Remember B.C. Premier Ujjal Dosanjh? H said almost the same things as Ms. back in 2008:

Speaking to CBC ‘s The Current, Dosanjh said the [sex identification] tests need to be regulated and a debate launched about whether it’s acceptable to have an abortion because of the gender of a fetus.

“The women’s’ right to choose, for me that’s paramount,” he said, “[but] I believe we need to make sure that [if] people are aborting simply for gender selection, that is absolutely not supported.

“This is about gender equality. If there is a medical need for these tests, I have no difficulty … to deal with disease,” Dosanjh said. “Being a female absolutely is not a disease.” (Source)

Being a baby isn’t a disease either, Mr. Dosanjh.

You have no leg to stand on when you claim that all abortions are fine except for the ones that target a particular gender. How does the fetus suddenly have absolute value in the case of sex-selection abortion yet it’s only an expendable clump of cells for all other abortions?

Notice his comment about launching a debate “about whether it’s acceptable to have an abortion because of the gender of a fetus.” It’s been three years. Where’s the debate? I guess he wasn’t so passionate about the issue after all.

And I’m willing to bet that if we launched such a debate and put forth a bill to make such abortions illegal in Canada, Stephen Harper would actively oppose it, as would all the parties. And the feminists would find contortionary ways to oppose the bill and advocate for more fashion shows.

2 thoughts on “Pro-choicers uncomfortable about sex-selection abortion, but can’t find a solution

  1. “This is about gender equality. If there is a medical need for these tests, I have no difficulty … to deal with disease,” Dosanjh said. “Being a female absolutely is not a disease.”

    What a fool. I guess that leaves us males who can be open targets, huh?

  2. I was raised on a stock farm and our women worked as hard as any man, and we didn’t let men get legal access to woman’s bathrooms. With Burnaby Douglas MP Bill Siksay’s Bill C-389 The Transgendered Bathroom Bill that will add the terms Gender Identity and Gender Expression to The Canadian Human Rights Act. The gender expression will allow men to gain legal access by right to use woman’s bathrooms, thereby providing the legitimized access that sexual predator’s desire. This puts Canadian women and children at great risk. The Courts and Police will do to anyone who objects to their worldview exactly what the did to Ruth Lobo. Canadians what have you become? Bill C-389 has passed Parliament and now is in the Senate. Please get hold of your Senators and plead with them to put an end to this bad legislation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Solve : *
22 × 14 =