Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Pro-Aborts Backed into a Corner

The subject of sex-selection abortions is a troublesome one. I should have realised when Ezra Levant advised Andrea Mrozek that the way to tackle pro-choicers was on this very issue, he was onto something. After all, Ezra Levant knows how to win a fight.

Today's
article
in the National Post, by Kelly McParland, takes on the issue. As McParland states:

Why, then, would abortion proponents object to women having abortions because they don't like the sex of the fetus? If a fetus is not human, a woman has the right to abort it for whatever reason she chooses. - Putting Abortion Advocates in a Box, by Kelly McParland, National Post, April 13, 2010


And this article by Peter Hitchens in The Daily Mail April 10 paints a deplorable picture of China, where abortion and, in particular, sex-selection abortion, has produced a country facing a problematic imbalance in the number of boys versus girls.

FYI - Peter Hitchens is the brother of Christopher Hitchens, the very vocal atheist much in the news lately. In fact, the two brothers debate one another. Peter is a Christian by the way.

In the cruel old China, baby girls were often left to die in the gutters. In the cruel modern China, they are aborted by the tens of millions, using all the latest technology.

There is an ugly new word for this mass slaughter: gendercide.
Thanks to a state policy which has limited many families to one child since 1979, combined with an ancient and ruthless prejudice in favour of sons, the world's new superpower is beginning the century of its supremacy with an alarming surplus of males. - Peter Hitchens, Gendercide: China's Shameful Massacre of Unborn Girls


Imagine this conversation:
Girl seeking abortion: "I just can't have a baby right now, my boyfriend (husband) has left, I am alone."
"I have two more years of school to finish. I can't support a baby right now, and I might not finish my year if I am pregnant."
"I was raped, and I don't want to carry a baby that will remind me of this for the rest of my life."

One can sympathize with anyone who said any of those things; not that any of those is sufficient reason to end someone's life, but one can feel empathy for the girl in these cases. But imagine this statement:

"I just had an ultrasound and this is a girl. I don't want a girl, I just want a boy, so I will have an abortion."

Pretty difficult to feel any sympathy for this woman. While in the other instances, discrimination against the unborn on the basis of his/her inconvenient appearance in one's life is not readily apparent, in the case of sex-selection, the discrimination is simply too blatant to be overlooked.

So Ezra Levant is right; sex-selection abortion is the weak link in the pro-abort argument. This is an opportunity not to be missed. Because, if pro-choicers support abortion as a woman's right, then they are forced to support abortion for sex selection. After all, if the fetus is not a human being, what difference does it make that more girls than boys are being aborted?

Update: This article in LifeSiteNews, with an inane response from Joyce Arthur, the most pro-abort voice in Canada.

Joyce Arthur, coordinator of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, told the National Post that Leier and Thiele's recommendations would be ineffective because of the easy availability of gender tests. She argued that Canadians should focus on changing attitudes that are against girls instead of limiting abortion.

"To restrict people's freedoms, withholding information in that way, I think is unethical and unnecessary and is not going to prevent anything," she said. "It's a little bit paternalistic and authoritarian." - LifeSiteNews, April 13, 2010


Really, Joyce, let's just change 3000 years of Chinese attitude as you say. Spoken like a western feminist who has very little understanding of the world at large.

No comments: