Re: Those Favouring Abortion Can't Have It Both Ways, letter to the editor, April 13.
Letter-writer Paul Ranalli argues that it is inconsistent for pro-abortionists to condemn abortion following sex selection but not abortion itself.
There is no inconsistency. Pro-choice supporters claim that abortion itself is not immoral because it is a woman's right; abortion following sex selection is immoral because it is sexist.
I will add that the equation of abortion with genocide is inflammatory and an insult to the victims of true genocide.
If I may, I believe Dr. Ranalli is completely correct in pointing out the logical disparity between the pro-abortion view that the unborn baby's humanity is nonexistent and can therefore be aborted at will and the shock at aborting females.
If the "fetus" not a human being or any legally recognised individual but a mere bit of flesh, it has no gender, nullifying the notion that ascertaining its gender and killing her is wrong.
Sex selection abortions raise quite the quandary for pro-abortionists. They must save face on THREE different fronts. They cannot recognise the humanity of an unborn child. They cannot outrightly accept sex selection abortions or they will alienate the rest of the female population they wish to persuade. They also cannot condemn the cultural practice of choosing boys over girls lest they be accused of racism. It is the rock/hard place/pile of thorns position they have sandwiched themselves into.
Is abortion genocide? An identifiable group is being targeted and eliminated with legal approval. I would say yes, it is.
No comments:
Post a Comment