Regarding the book Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men by Mara Hvistendahl: Frankly, I'm puzzled.
Why is abortion for sex-selection any more horrific than abortion because of any other "choice"? There is no difference. Once we allow "choice" to be normalized, which we have done now for over 40 years in Canada, it's all kind of moot.
A woman can abort her child for any reason she chooses, and sex-selection is simply one more of the myriad of choices a woman can make.
She can choose to have an abortion because it is inconvenient, or because she forgot her pill, or because she needs to finish her degree, or because she broke up with her boy friend. Or because...whatever.
Once we started sliding down the slippery slope of choice abortion, all choice abortions are legitimized, sanctioned and yes, even celebrated.
So I was wondering why some women like Mara Hvistendahl seem to bet be getting kind of antsy about the whole sex-selection abortion thing--when all other kinds of choice abortions are completely acceptable.
And then I looked at the title of her book, and I had an ah-ha moment. It's the men. Those darn misogynist men are trying to run the world and if we start aborting all the women, well, there won't be any of us left. And without women, there will be no babies. And without babies, well, the world will end. And the feminists won't be able to run the show anymore. Because there won't be any.
Okay, so back to the drawing board.
Hear ye, hear ye, all ye feminists, especially ye uber-feminists: You can have a choice abortion for any reason, except, you know, that one. You can't choose to abort a child if she's a female. Spread the word.
Showing posts with label Mara Hvistendahl. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mara Hvistendahl. Show all posts
Friday, August 5, 2011
Thursday, June 30, 2011
The abortion conundrum
In this article (it also appeared in the National Post today) by Ross Douthat, Douthat takes aim at the pro-choice movement’s conundrum of the 160 million baby girls aborted through sex-selection gendercide.
In discussing Mara Hvistendahl's book called Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men. Douthat says:
"This places many Western liberals, Hvistendahl included, in a distinctly uncomfortable position. Their own premises insist that the unborn aren’t human beings yet, and that the right to an abortion is nearly absolute. A self-proclaimed agnostic about when life begins, Hvistendahl insists that she hasn’t written “a book about death and killing.” But this leaves her struggling to define a victim for the crime that she’s uncovered."
Douhat points out the problems facing "pro-choicers".
Problem number one: The unborn aren’t human beings yet
This is at the core of the "pro-choice" philosophy, that the unborn are not human beings yet. If we can say that the unborn child is not a human being, then of course it is much easier to abort them.
Problem number two: When does life begin?
Why it begins at conception, when else would it begin? Again "pro-choicers" get all weird on this question.
Problem number three: It isn't a book about death and killing.
Of course it is about death and killing. That is what abortion is.
The pro-abortions have to make stuff up about what a fetus is; about when life begins; about how abortion isn't killing. All so that they can keep that coveted "right" to abortion. That's the only way it can work.
So who is the victim of this gendercide? Well, the baby and her mother of course, but so is society. The tragic irony is that these 160 million dead unborn children are women--yet this is all about the so-called "woman's right to have an abortion."
I really don't get it.
In discussing Mara Hvistendahl's book called Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men. Douthat says:
"This places many Western liberals, Hvistendahl included, in a distinctly uncomfortable position. Their own premises insist that the unborn aren’t human beings yet, and that the right to an abortion is nearly absolute. A self-proclaimed agnostic about when life begins, Hvistendahl insists that she hasn’t written “a book about death and killing.” But this leaves her struggling to define a victim for the crime that she’s uncovered."
Douhat points out the problems facing "pro-choicers".
Problem number one: The unborn aren’t human beings yet
This is at the core of the "pro-choice" philosophy, that the unborn are not human beings yet. If we can say that the unborn child is not a human being, then of course it is much easier to abort them.
Problem number two: When does life begin?
Why it begins at conception, when else would it begin? Again "pro-choicers" get all weird on this question.
Problem number three: It isn't a book about death and killing.
Of course it is about death and killing. That is what abortion is.
The pro-abortions have to make stuff up about what a fetus is; about when life begins; about how abortion isn't killing. All so that they can keep that coveted "right" to abortion. That's the only way it can work.
So who is the victim of this gendercide? Well, the baby and her mother of course, but so is society. The tragic irony is that these 160 million dead unborn children are women--yet this is all about the so-called "woman's right to have an abortion."
I really don't get it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)