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.
No other word for them.
Using readily available, reliable birth control, or refraining from sex altogether, never seems to be an option with these people.
How can you believe that babies are a gift from God AND believe that it's your right to kill it?
There was an episode of a short lived TV show, “Future City”, with exactly this premise. If you could terminate for any reason, why not homosexuality?
Excuse me, it was “Century City”.
“Sweet Child of Mine” December 23, 2004
Hannah, Marty and Tom represent a fertility specialist who, with the help of science, provides couples the opportunity to choose their child’s genetic make-up. The doctor is being sued for not revealing to his clients that the embryo they choose will be gay. Meanwhile, Lukas, Darwin and Lee May take on a case where an affluent man burgles his ex-girlfriend’s house to steal back his likeness.
All that matters is that she consents to the abortion. But "consent", like so many other Western concepts recently discarded by our society, will someday also be discarded. Then little Ditums will see what brutality looks like.
This is the road the Left has forced us on.
You are correct, Sir!
It’s a short step from personally approving abortion to approving infanticide. And an even shorter step to euthanasia. And then murdering somebody because he’s a creepy-assed cracka.
I vaguely remember reading about this play (which was filmed as a TV movie, hence this page) some years ago: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120392/plotsummary?ref_=tt_ov_pl
Plot Summary for
The Twilight of the Golds (1996)
When Suzanne Stein has a genetic analysis done on her unborn child, she discovers that although she has a healthy baby, the child will most likely be born gay, like her brother, David. She must decide whether to keep the child, or to have an abortion. Her family enters a crisis about love and acceptance as she makes this difficult choice. Written by Phil Fernando
I can't find it now, but around that same time, I'd read a mention of a gay pro-life group that had some reliance on an argument concerning "gay genes" and abortion. To its credit, at least if I remember correctly, the position was general and consistent, not something like "if you abort because of a gay gene, that's bad, but abortions in general are just peachy with us!"
One of the major problems with "anti-discrimination" laws is that they assume the concept of a right to do something without requiring a specific reason, provided only that one isn't doing it for a "forbidden" reason. One may reasonably argue that women have no right to have abortions except under certain narrowly-defined circumstances. One may also reasonably argue that they have a right to have abortions for any reason they see fit(*). To suggest, however, that women have a right to abortions for any reason they see fit except when their desire stems purely from the sex of the unborn child, however, implies that it must be possible to somehow determine when that condition would apply. That position can be shown to be illogical regardless of whether women have a general right to abortion.
(*) There's no way any sort of laws can prevent bad parents from severely messing up their children. Giving government has the authority to take children away from sufficiently bad parents will almost unavoidably also give it the power to attack the families of good parents whom it doesn't like. The level of mischief that parents could do if allowed absolute unconditional life-and-death control of their children until age 18 would pale compared to what an overreaching government could do. Although an unconditional grant of parental authority would be detrimental to the children of bad parents, it wouldn't harm the children of good parents. By contrast, an overreaching government could harm everyone's children, leaving no undamaged children to raise the next generation of leaders.
I think this attitude might change when other traits such as sexual preference, intelligence, stature and complexion will be knowable and used as selection criteria.
Since the woman almost certainly chose to get pregnant, I would argue that by the time another human being is involved, it is far too late to worry about exercising her choice. Therefore, I will keep speaking up against abortion and attempting to educate people on the actual facts of pregnancy.
Furthermore, abortion is *not* safe for the woman; it is significantly less safe than any form of contraceptive that she could choose. In addition, having an abortion increases the chances of being unable to carry a future baby to term. A woman who has had an abortion is as likely to lose a baby as a woman who smokes during pregnancy—however, unlike the smoker who can quit smoking during pregnancy, a woman cannot undo abortion related damage that causes fetal loss or infertility. I have also seen a recent study that suggests that abortion may cause autism (the study didn’t say that, but it is a logical extrapolation of the study).
Idiots like this author do a lot to negate the image of woman as nurturers, while doing a lot to convince everyone that women are stupid and irresponsible. She does women no favors with her pro-abortion as birth control advocacy.