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 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?
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.
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.