The House of Representatives this past week fell short of the two-thirds majority needed to pass a bill banning abortion based on sex selection — sometimes called “gendercide” because it’s usually aimed at exterminating baby girls. Most Republicans voted for banning gendercide, most Democrats against.
I have to say, I’m with the Democrats on this one. The Supreme Court has decided that aborting our children is a right enshrined in the Constitution. By what logic, then, do we withhold that right from people based on their motives for exercising it?
If a woman chooses to snuff out her unborn child because it’s retarded or handicapped or female, who are we to say her nay? How would we even know why she’s doing it? Are we going to interrogate her? Administer a lie detector test? And what happens when our genetic testing capabilities improve? Are we going to stop her from aborting a child who is genetically destined to be gay? Or unintelligent? Or untalented? Or freckled? Of course not. How could we? As MSNBC host Alex Wagner said, praising the House Democrats’ decision, “It’s about a woman’s right to choose!”
Exactly. The Supreme Court has ruled that a woman has a right to choose to abort a child growing inside her own body. And even that doesn’t really make sense. It still limits a woman’s constitutional sphere of action. After all, a person has the same right to life whether he’s in one place or another, so if a baby has no right to life in the womb, why should that status change just because he comes out? It doesn’t make any sense.
So says Peter Singer, a Princeton University bioethicist. Singer says you should be able to “abort” a child up to four months old. Before eighteen weeks, Singer says, a baby can’t form preferences so its preferences can’t be weighed against those of the mother — so what’s the problem? Likewise Italian philosopher Alberto Giubilini and Australian ethicist Francesca Minerva, who recently wrote that “killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be.”
I dare you to find a flaw in their logic:
If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.
And, as the Democrats and MSNBC have now rightfully explained to us, one of the reasons which justify abortion would be the discovery that the child is of the wrong sex. And if you’re one of those people who like to be surprised by your baby’s gender, you might well want to wait until the doctor turns to you with the words, “It’s a girl!” before deciding to slaughter it. It’s your constitutional right.
Indeed, only by following the Democrats’ logic to its natural conclusion can women fully claim their God-given prerogative to kill babies of the wrong gender, sexual preference, intelligence, skill set, physical abilities, skin color or hair color. Thus only by saying a loud, triumphant “No!” to the Republicans’ war on women’s rights can we begin to shape the future generations of this great nation to be the very best they can be.
This, after all, was the goal of Margaret Sanger who, as the Planned Parenthood website declares, was “the founder of Planned Parenthood… [and] one of the movement’s great heroes.” Sanger wanted to “assist the race to the elimination of the unfit,” (especially black people) and, judging by the nearly 2,000 black babies aborted every day, Planned Parenthood and the Democrats are clearly following in her footsteps.
Republicans may be willing to stand by while humanity sinks into femininity, blackness and other defects, but not me. No, sir!
I propose a new slogan for the upcoming election.
“Democrats: Killing Our Way to the Master Race!”
image courtesy shutterstock / blessings