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 ...
Evil.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.