Skip to comments.Why women have a right to sex-selective abortion
Posted on 09/19/2013 10:46:50 AM PDT by mojito
When you talk about being pro-choice, sex selective abortion is often slung at you as the triumphant gotcha. "You love women so much you want them to be in charge of what grows inside their bodies, but what about the women who are aborted, have a go at answering that? ZING!"
The answer is actually remarkably simple, and it's this: it doesn't matter whether what's growing inside you is liable to end up as a man or a woman. What matters is whether the person it's growing inside the person who is going to have to deliver the resulting baby, at not inconsiderable personal peril actually wants to be pregnant and give birth to this child. In a world where it's possible to end a pregnancy safely and legally, it seems like rank brutality to force anyone to carry to term against her will.
And as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter why any woman wants to end her pregnancy. As the conscious and legally competent entity in the conception set-up, it's the woman's say that counts, and even the most terrible reason for having an abortion holds more sway than the best imaginable reason for compelling a woman to carry to term.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
My right to murder is absolute, no matter the reason, without moral qualm.
If this is not the end of Western Civilization, it's the next best thing.
Its only a natural “right”, ladies
Look at how many female species have discovered ways to abort the offspring growing inside them
Her reasoning is impeccable, IF you accept the premise that the woman’s right to chose takes precedence over the baby’s right to life.
The reason she makes the choice to abort is irrelevant.
The only Brutality happening is what's done to the baby, who is torn limb from limb and then vacuumed out and thrown away
“...But what about when a pregnant woman lives in a society that gives her real and considerable reason to fear having a girl? The kind of society where dowry systems mean an inconveniently gendered child could bankrupt a family, or one where a livid patriarch deprived of a male heir could turn his fury on both mother and daughter? In those situations, a woman wouldn't just be justified in seeking sex selective abortion; she'd be thoroughly rational to do so.”
Again, the confluence of the totalitarian left and Islam, a merger made in hell if ever there was one.
That is their argument: that the unborn child is not a human so ‘pro-choice’ is a form of libertarian-ism and so pro-lifers who are against lots of government regulations are hypocrites.
Of course the hypocrite argument works only in one direction in their eyes.
MURDER of the most innocent humans. THAT is all it is. Dispicable ghouls!
These people are f8cking sick. I have never read such filth from subhuman scum. The Mengele’s of today, this woman should be given a post-birth abortion.
Bear in mind that this is (with a few hems and haws) the viewpoint of more than half the American people, who consistently vote for politicians who LOVE abortion.
There was an article in Time many yrs ago where some genetic scientists are looking for genes that determine personality traits. They specifically stated there could be genes that determine a person tendency toward criminal behavior and homosexuality. If there really is such a thing as a “gay gene” or a “mean gene” all the hand wringing about medical ethics will not prevent the cat from being let out of the bag. Then it will only be a matter of time when a woman seeks an abortion because her doc told her the unviable tissue mass inside her may turn out to be criminal, or gay, or both. THEN let’s how many pro-choicers become pro lifers overnight.
And I suppose she thinks its OK to abort at any stage of pregnancy even right up to the day before birth. By extension, after birth she may decide she doesnt want to be responsible for the infant so she should have the right to do with it as she pleases. The left is sick.
I’m not sure how you stop this when it’s already legal to abort for convenience (mental health of mother) up to a certain point anyhow. I guess the doctor says ‘no’ if the woman specifically says ‘abortion’ right after she is told her baby’s gender? But if she comes back the next day and says ‘abortion’ the doctor says ‘yes’?
The pro-life side doesn't have this problem, killing the baby, boy or girl, is wrong.
The reason she makes the choice to abort is irrelevant.
I've always wondered why there seem to exist so many people who are pro-"choice" yet oppose sex-selective abortion.
If abortions are supposedly morally unobjectionable for any reason or no reason at all provided that the pregnant woman really wants (or at least thinks that she really wants) to have one, what's the difference there? If it's not repulsive to get an abortion merely because of convenience, how is sex-selective abortion all that different?
The baby would certainly disagree with the writer on whether permitting an innocent child to live is brutality. Regardless of the legality of abortion, the moral status of murdering an innocent unborn child is obvious. I also believe that the best time to end a pregnancy safely and legally is before having sex. In most cases, abortions are from recreational sex, not rape or incest, and the woman could simply have said, "let's play Scrabble instead".
There is no logic or attempt at reasoning from philosophical axioms. The article consists of assertion after assertion, based on personal emotional feelings.
This is how most five year olds think.
Since this is how everyone enters life, then her argument does not negate the act of abortion being the taking of another life unjustly.
If there were some other way that life entered this world, then she could say she had a preference, so move the baby on over to plan B.
But there isn’t. It’s the same with all life. She is taking a life without due process.