Painted into a corner by their extremism, pro-abortionists lash out irrationally

By Dave Andrusko

While there is the obligatory slap across the knuckles of pro-lifers, an op-ed by Rachael Larimore that ran in a couple of newspapers today is by and large a very thoughtful inquiry into “why can’t we at least come together even on preventing sex selection abortions?” (It’s actually an update of a piece she wrote for Slate magazine last week. Larimore is Slate’s managing editor.)

“The commentary from the pro-choice side is stereotypical and predictable,” Larimore writes, referencing the by-the-numbers resistance to the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act  (H.R. 3541). As you recall last week the bill received a solid majority but not the  two-thirds vote required for passage under the fast-track procedure that was utilized.

“Stereotypical and predictable”  (and “clichéd”) is putting what we read and hear mildly. To Larimore’s credit, she addresses several of the most absurd objections, in so doing artfully showing how shabby those pseudo-objections are.

Click here to receive NRL News Today Monday through Saturday

For example, that “there are better ways to combat gender bias” than passing H.R. 3541. We should really stand by while babies pay the ultimate price for the ultimate in sex discrimination until “son preference” vanishes? That shouldn’t take more than a hundred or two hundred years.

Or that the legislation is ‘racist,’ because sex-selection abortion is largely practiced by families that come out cultures where the desire for sons is overwhelming. But read the studies that we talked about last week (www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2012/05/president-obama-opposes-the-prenatal-nondiscrimination-act-for-provision-it-does-not-include) and you cannot miss that overwhelmingly women are not exercising “choice” but submitting to subtle and overt (and indeed violent) coercion.

And, again to her credit, Larimore reminds her readers (whom, judging by the online responses, are overwhelmingly pro-abortion) that these are later abortions because it takes that long to determine the sex of the baby.  She writes

“Perfectly healthy children who are nearing viability are being aborted because of sexism. At the end of the day, that’s the most important thing.”

We’ll talk more about this pro-abortion irrationality [“Sex-selection abortion is cruel and discriminatory and legal”]. For here, suffice it to say, when your position is there can never be enough abortions or any situation in which they ought be performed, you are painting yourself into a corner. The American people are way over on the other side of the room.

You can read the original Slate piece here.

Your feedback is very important to improving National Right to Life News Today. Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha