No matter on which side of the abortion debate you are, you must be logical. This can not be simply a shouting match, with screaming on both sides. That is completely counter-productive and exhibits crass intolerance, hatred, and the absolute refusal to listen to others.
Being pro-choice means that you believe that the woman has the right to decide to do whatever she wishes with her body, even if she is pregnant and carrying another body. The latest term I have heard for this is physical integrity, meaning that every person has all the rights over his/her body.
Now pro-choicers don't like to get into the argument that there is a second body present when a woman is pregnant, although there actually is. Medical science has determined this without a doubt, another human body with its own distinct DNA, its own bodily functions, its own brain, heart and all vital organs, and all the biological equipment necessary to propel its growth ever forward. They still claim that the woman has the right to abort that other being; that, if it comes to the rights of the woman versus the rights of the fetus, then the woman's rights trump those of the fetus.
So let's carry this position to its logical conclusion. If you hold to this belief that the woman has the final decision about her fetus, then you have to give her that right throughout the entire pregnancy and in all circumstances. You can't just give her that right some of the time and not all of the time.
So, here enters some problems for pro-choicers. It is now a known fact that the majority of abortions are done on girl fetuses and on ethnic minorities. In India and China, women abort female fetuses because the culture prefers boys. This has been done so much that there is now a huge imbalance in the sexes in those countries.
A new United Nations Development Program (UNDP) report released March 8, entitled "Power, Voice and Rights: A Turning Point for Gender Equality in Asia and the Pacific," and coinciding with International Women's Day, highlights the fact that sex-selective abortion continues to increase the gender imbalance in developing countries.
Under the heading "more women than ever are disappearing," a press release from the UNDP announcing the new report says, "The problem of 'missing girls' in which more boys are born than girls, as girl fetuses are presumably aborted, and women die from health and nutrition neglect - is actually growing. Birth gender disparity is greatest in East Asia, where 119 boys are born for every 100 girls."
The report found that "China and India together account for more than 85 million of the nearly 100 million 'missing' women estimated to have died from discriminatory treatment in health care, nutrition access or pure neglect or because they were never born in the first place."
"Females cannot take survival for granted," the report said. "Sex-selective abortion, infanticide, and death from health and nutritional neglect in Asia have left 96 million missing women ... and the numbers seem to be increasing in absolute terms." -
LifeSiteNews, March 9, 2010
It is not only pro-life sources that are stating these statistics. Lest you think that it is only pro-life, "religious" media that are putting forth these stats, I quote from author, Karin Evans, a journalist who adopted two girls from China.
In 1996 there were 36 million more males than females in China, a figure that could just keep climbing, some said, reaching 70 million by the year 2000. The population was already so out of balance that demographers reported in the 1990s that five of China's thirty provinces had 120 boys for every 100 girls. By 1998, according to research by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, the overall ratio of boys to girls had climbed to 120 to 100.
It is not only the girls of this generation who are missing today. By broad estimates, 30 million females in China - a number equivalent to the entire population of Mexico City, say, or a full 5 percent of China's population - are missing. Gone. (China, by the way, is not alone in this phenomenon. India's statistics also reflect a vast number of missing females, and worldwide, according to Betsy Hartmann, author of Reproductive Rights & Wrongs, more than 100 million females who should, by normal expectation, be alive and well on the planet are missing.)
Where are the lost women of China? "Some were killed at birth in the 1930s and '40s and so are not present as elderly women today," writes China Wakes co-author Sheryl WuDunn. "Some died as girls because they were not given adequate food, clothing, and health care. Some died in the 1958-1961 famine because their parents saved the rice for the brothers."
Others, the victims of ultrasound, were conceived but never born. Some were born but didn't make it past infancy, and others may have just eluded official recognition... Whatever the mix of explanations, an enormous number of little girls has disappeared - largely to the world's indifference. As New York Times writer Bob Herbert declared: "There has never been the kind of international outcry that there should be over the girls who are missing from the population of China. The world has largely closed its eyes to this immense tragedy." - The Lost Daughters of China, by Karin Evans
And an even more recent article on sex selection abortion and the spreading problem of male/female ratio is Gendercide, The War on Baby Girls in The Economist, March 4, 2010
h/t Pro Woman Pro Life
Pro-choice logic cannot stop sex-selection abortions; women have to accept the fact that women will abort their own sex, if they choose to do so. This is truly a dilemma in which they find themselves, because to object to abortion on the basis of sex-selection is to remove the "freedom to choose" from women. Stuck between a rock and a hard place, if you ask me. After all, what "choice" does the female fetus have in all of this?
Sex selection is not the only problem for pro-choice advocates. Aborting disabled infants certainly flies in the face of positive action for those who are disabled. I mean, why make all your sidewalks wheelchair accessible if what you really want is to eliminate those disabled people before birth? You cannot take both sides; aborting the disabled infant sends the most alarming message to the disabled in our society, many of whom are living very fulfilling lives (just ask them if they would prefer to have been aborted).
Recently, Michael Coren was invited by the pro-life group at Queen's University to give a talk there to students. The usual protestors were anticipated and they did show up. Michael, however, addressed them first and asked if they would allow him to speak or were they simply going to show intolerance and shout him down? They complied and listened to his talk politely.
Michael wrote about his experiences with university students in the latest edition of The Interim , a newspaper devoted to pro-life issues. I found his concluding paragraph to be a real clincher:
At the end of another university speech, I chatted with a pro-abortion student who, unlike most of her friends, was at least willing to dialogue. She told me she was gay. I said to her, "I'm not going to debate homosexuality with you, but let me put to you a proposition. Let us suppose for a moment that a gay gene was found and could be detected in unborn children. I do not believe this to be plausible or possible, but for the sake of argument, let us pretend. Then let us suppose that many people decided to abort their baby if it had such a gene and was gay. Would that be choice, would that be acceptable?"
A long, long pause. Then tears came into her eyes and she backed away, Perhaps, God willing, we are changing some people some of the time. No shame in that at all. - Michael Coren in The Interim, March 2010
Follow the logic, you cannot both be pro-choice and make exceptions. Either abortion is right or it is wrong; it cannot be both.