Defending lethal prenatal gender discrimination

By Dave Andrusko

ChooseAdIt’s close to an iron rule of thumb: the louder and more irrational the pro-abortionist’s squawks, the more likely it is she (or he) is protesting any talk about an area of extreme sensitivity to them—aka a point of vulnerability because they are so far out of line with public opinion.

Granted, that could apply to about ten different topics, but today it’s sex-selection abortions and the hysteria bills banning such grotesque gender discrimination evinces from pro-abortion feminists. Honestly, it’s amazing how much this upsets them.

Why? There are a dozen different possibilities but we’ll talk about just a couple.

At the most obvious, pro-abortion feminists are in the uncomfortable position of dealing with what one author called the “disappearance” of 160 million females worldwide—virtually all because ultrasound technology allows the ultimate search-and-destroy mission. That is why Robin Marty, writing on the pro-abortion site Rhrealitycheck.org, immediately retreats to the argument that there is “not data to indicate sex selection is a problem in the United States” (as opposed to, say, Canada or the world as a whole).

An obvious rejoinder: what if there is, and she manages to avoid dealing with it. What if sex-selection abortion were clearly a “problem” in the United States—would her position change?

Actually it would. If the data were unambiguous, even mountainous, at that point somehow aborting a child because she is not a boy would no longer be classified as a “problem.” To the pro-abortion mind, never overly troubled by consistency, easy peasy.

Likewise, Marty and like-minded pro-abortionists always—ALWAYS—use the same tired refrain. If you attempt to stop any abortion—no matter how late in pregnancy, no matter how discriminatory is the reason for the abortion, no matter if almost everyone agrees these abortions ought to be prevented—it’s part of a master plan to ban all abortions.

But what if, say 77% of respondents would support a law to ban abortion in cases where “the fact that the developing baby is a girl is the sole reason for seeking an abortion.” What then? Actually, that’s exactly what a 2012 poll found.

A common pro-abortion rejoinder is to go sidewise, as did Imani Gandy, Senior Legal Analyst, RH Reality Check. We are “tug[ging] on the heartstrings of fair-minded individuals,” she claims, which is made worse because  we don’t support policies (outside the abortion realm) that people like Gandy are advancing. In other words, if our agenda is not their larger agenda, we are not allowed to say it’s wrong to practice lethal prenatal sex discrimination.

As always, heads they win, tails we lose.

But the point remains the same. It is not only hypocritical in the extreme for pro-abortion females to stand by while unborn females are killed, but by being on the wrong side of this issue they are opening the door to a wider examination of why the lives of 1.2 million unborn children are taken every year.

Please join those who are following me on Twitter at twitter.com/daveha. Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com.