There's an article in the New York Times about a situation in India where, because of a cultural preference for male children there is a significant incidence of females being aborted after the parents learn the sex of the child. This happens often enough that it is illegal for doctors to reveal the sex of the child to parents who get an ultrasound.
I would imagine that to hear of such a practice would shock and disgust many abortion-rights supporters. Aborting a pregnancy just because it's a girl? Unconscionable!
But... whatever happened to a woman's right to choose? What sort of world do we live in where ripping an unborn child from the womb is acceptable, unless it's done because you don't want a daughter? If abortion is as sacred a right as we are told, and if the child in the womb doesn't matter, then what's wrong with choosing whether or not you want a son or daughter before deciding to abort?
I am honestly curious how these two thoughts are recconciled by those who would support abortion. I honestly can't make sense of it.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I'm pretty hard-line pro-life, so take this for what you will. But, I'd guess that a "reasonable" abortion advocate would say that abortion is a bad thing, generally, but it should still be a woman's choice. They'll say "no one is for abortion." And they'll also say getting abortions for superficial reasons or using abortion as a method of birth control is a bad thing. So, the India situation falls into an extreme version of a bad reason for abortion, particularly given the patriarchal overtones it displays.
Still, I think that argument isn't very strong because I think there's good reason to believe a lot of abortion in the US happens for "bad reasons" like birth control and even sex-selection.
Post a Comment