Leauki Leauki

Unnatural Selection

▼

Unnatural Selection

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303657404576361691165631366.html?mod=WSJ_hp_us_mostpop_read
from JoeUser Forums

Despite the author's intentions, "Unnatural Selection" might be one of the most consequential books ever written in the campaign against abortion. It is aimed, like a heat-seeking missile, against the entire intellectual framework of "choice." For if "choice" is the moral imperative guiding abortion, then there is no way to take a stand against "gendercide." Aborting a baby because she is a girl is no different from aborting a baby because she has Down syndrome or because the mother's "mental health" requires it. Choice is choice. One Indian abortionist tells Ms. Hvistendahl: "I have patients who come and say 'I want to abort because if this baby is born it will be a Gemini, but I want a Libra.' "

This is where choice leads. This is where choice has already led. Ms. Hvistendahl may wish the matter otherwise, but there are only two alternatives: Restrict abortion or accept the slaughter of millions of baby girls and the calamities that are likely to come with it.

I can see both sides. But I think the above is a strong argument, even if I disagree with parts of it.

I do agree with the main point. Abortion should be restricted somehow. It is NOT a neutral medical procedure.

And I think this is actually the first time I have taken a real stance on the issue, other than voicing my personal opinion based on my religion which I never intended to become law.

9,345 views 27 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top

LEAUKI posts #8

I disagree with the proposal that abortion of a child with a genetic disorder (like Down syndrome) is the same as abortion of a child because she is a girl or the wrong star sign. (Of course I don't even believe in the latter being a notable difference at all.) I can understand a woman who aborts a child because of a genetic disorder. She does it because she feels she cannot handle more responsibility then she signed up for. It's not the same as aborting a healthy child.
End of quote

 

If we reflect upon Abortion a bit deeper, that is for what abortion IS, we find that all abortions are the same. Simply put,  all Abortions are performed for one reason and one reason only...namely, to kill the new human life growing inside the womb.

Where we differ is that you and abortion advocates believe that by abortion, it's OK for individuals to kill other individuals in the womb but that individual is not a human being with human rights. 

Note that as a potential life form the foetus does warant protection. It may not be aborted for no good reason because potential life is worth more than no life at all. And only lifeless things may be treated arbitrarily and without respect.
End of quote

Those things underlined are either myths, errors or lies of the pro-abortion camp.

"Potential" life form the foetus?  Is not the "thing" in the womb of a pregnant woman alive? Of course it is and it would be absurd to deny this. It takes nourishment and grows and that is the elementary school definition of a human living thing. 

 

Finally, I do not believe that an unborn child is a human being or even a lifeform before it starts growing (i.e. within the first trimester). It is only a potential life form.
End of quote

The thing growing in the womb of a pregnant woman is alive and it's not some unknown species. We have ultrasounds that prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the thing growing in the womb, it's little heart beatuing, taking nourishment, is a living human being.  

Abortion advocates know perfectly well that abortion takes the life of a human being. There is no doubt on that. That's why they withhold information from women in order to influence their decision to have the abortion.

Even if abortion is totally legal, children should not be aborted for arbitrary reasons.
End of quote

Isn't aborting a child with a genetic disorder an arbitrary reason? Of course it is.

Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top

As with sex selection abortion, this too is very troubling.

 

India: bishops condemn sex-change operations for infant girls

  July 11, 2011

The Indian episcopal conference has “strongly condemned” sex-change operations performed on infant girls at the request of their parents. In Indore--a city of 1.5 million in the central Indian state of Madhya Pradesh--some 300 girls under the age of one have reportedly been victims of the operation.

“We have strongly condemned, as Indian bishops, this horrible practice,” said Father Charles Irudayam, an official of the Episcopal Conference of India. “It is the result of a mindset that favors [the] male as a source of profit and as a son of greater value, mortifying the dignity of women.”

“We knew about the phenomenon of selective abortion which, according to some studies, over the past 20 years has concerned more than five million young girls,” he added. “Now surgery emerges … A lot needs to be done--just like what the Church is doing--to spread a culture of equality and to promote the dignity and the rights of women in society. But we have to fight a rooted mindset, and [it] is therefore a work that takes time.”

Source(s): these links will take you to other sites, in a new window.

Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion