Most all Conservatives would classify abortion as a great evil. And, consistent with evil, we have read horror stories about abortion clinics, including babies that survived to procedure, only to be killed. Now, there is news from the UK regarding doctors aborting babies based on their gender. For more, kindly review this excerpt from the Telegraph…
Doctors at British clinics have been secretly filmed agreeing to terminate foetuses purely because they are either male or female. Clinicians admitted they were prepared to falsify paperwork to arrange the abortions even though it is illegal to conduct such “sex-selection” procedures.
Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, said: “I’m extremely concerned to hear about these allegations. Sex selection is illegal and is morally wrong. I’ve asked my officials to investigate this as a matter of urgency.”
The disclosures will add to growing concerns about the regulation of abortion clinics and the apparent ability of women to secure terminations “on demand”.
The Daily Telegraph carried out an investigation into sex-selection abortions after concerns were raised that the procedures were becoming increasingly common for cultural and social reasons.
For me, this story is horrifying on multiple levels. Of course, that abortions are ever provided is horrific, and that babies are killed based on their gender only makes it more so. But, there is something odd about this story, and it deals with the fact that killing babies based on gender is illegal in the UK. To play devil’s advocate” here, I have to ask, why? Because, if you ask any feminazi, worth her vitriol, a fetus isn’t human, and it isn’t a person. Feminazis will also tell you that it is nothing more than a “fetal tissue mass,” and removing it is no different than having an appendectomy. But, we don’t apply gender to an inflamed appendix, do we? And, it isn’t unfair or illegal to remove a gall bladder, because it is not an appendix, is it? So then, what is different about a “fetal tissue mass” that is has to be protected based on it’s gender, and why does a “thing,” that is most definitely not a person, have a gender to begin with?
Or, are the feminazis trying to have their abortions, while also not killing little girls because they are girls?
But, the liberals face another interesting quandary. While it isn’t mentioned in the article, the practices discussed in it have far reaching consequences for other liberal populations. For example, the gay rights crowd maintains that their lifestyle is a result of nature, not nurture, or even choice. However, if that is indeed true, and that there is a “gay gene,” how long will it be before some smart scientist creates a test for it? And, if people are aborting due to genetic defects, or even by gender, how long will it be before potentially gay “fetal tissue masses” are being aborted?
Of course, there might be a protest by gay rights folks to prevent there being testing for a “gay gene,” or even aborting “fetal tissue masses” for possessing that trait. However, I must again play devil’s advocate and submit that if a “fetal tissue mass” is not a person, and has no rights under the law, that there can be no protections for them of any kind. Because, if you give them rights that an inflamed appendix does not also possess, you must be suggesting that they aren’t simply a “fetal tissue mass,” but something more, right?
Furthermore, If we go along with the feminazis, and deny the unborn personhood, can we simply commit “genocide” against gays by preventing them from being born in the first place? After all, “fetal tissue masses” aren’t people, right? And, what if we follow the advise of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who said that abortion is meant to prevent us from having the kind of people that we “don’t want too many of?” This situation should be exceedingly alarming to homosexuals, as there is a potential, by their own self-description, for being exterminated via abortion. Since we already know that one of the primary reasons for Planned Parenthood’s founding was the extermination of the “Black Race,” we probably ought to assume that other groups are not immune.
In the end, the problem with some populations being “disposable” or “inconvenient” is that the definition of who is “disposable” or “inconvenient” can change.
Note from Matt: Waiting for someone to accuse me of wanting to kill gay people in 5, 4, 3, 2…
Matt
I believe that future generations should have the same opportunities that myself, and those that came before me, had. My parents taught me that I could do anything I wanted to do. I don’t want to have to tell my daughter, “You can do whatever the government tells you to do.” We are at a crossroads in this country; are we going to be free, or are we going to be slaves to the nanny state. I choose freedom.
Good catch on the total lack of logic.
Thanks AOW. It jumped out at me.
Great questions Matt! This is what happens when a society loses the value of life. Once the premise is accepted that it is okay to end life at the will of the mother how can anyone tell that mother why she can and cannot have an abortion? We are constantly told it is a woman’s choice and if the choice is made based on sex or potential behavior who are we to tell the mother she can’t do it? This is the slippery slope we are on.
Indeed. When it becomes, “OK” to exterminate some, how long before others are added to the list?
The “Health” secretary was “extremely concerned about these allegations.” Concerned in “how did the press find out?”
Oh and Matt, why do you want to kill off gay people?
Indeed. In most cases, the so-called leaders are only sorry that they were caught.
If someone had to ask it, I’m glad it was you Infidel!
How long before the feminazis want the right to choose at any time up until the child reaches adulthood.. Rebellious teenagers can be a real pain in the butt, you know.
Jim, it’s funny that you should ask. Wait and see what I publish in the next couple days!
Matt,
I’ll be linking to this later this week.
I am alarmed in the extreme!