So I found a link here to this article in The Economist. Two things struck me about the article:
The first is that the unborn are unabashedly referred to as “babies” and specifically “daughters” throughout. The author readily admits that the unborn are babies, and that abortion kills them. This is impressive not because it tells us anything we don’t already know, but because it presents abortion as what it is (the killing of unborn babies), without so much of the usual rhetoric surrounding the issue in the mainstream media.
The second is that while the prevalence of sex-selective abortion and the resulting gender ratio are presented as a problem in the article, one cannot actually be opposed to sex-selective abortion while remaining logically consistent with many of the arguments used by those representing the “pro-choice” view.
For example, some who advocate abortion argue that “every child should be a wanted child.” Well, some parents in these countries don’t WANT these baby girls. Why should they have to carry these pregnancies to term and have these children? Does it matter WHY a baby isn’t wanted? How is not wanting me because of my gender any worse than not wanting me because I don’t fit into your plans right now, or because I might have a disability? If “unwantedness” justifies abortion, then couples have a right to abort all these unwanted baby girls. The problem with that argument, of course, is that degree of wantedness doesn’t change the humanity or intrinsic human dignity of the unborn, or anyone.
There are those who argue that if a child is going to be born into a difficult life situation, abortion is the best choice to make. Well, being female in a country with very apparent gender inequality is a difficult life situation. Maybe parents are just sparing their daughters this hardship by killing them before they’re born? Our response to those who face difficult situations, to those who are suffering, should be to work to make their lives better, not to make their lives end. As Stephanie Gray so eloquently puts it, “we need to alleviate the suffering, not eliminate the sufferer.”
But, some might say, perhaps these abortions are bad for society? That may be so, but “nobody should be able to tell a woman what to do with her body and her pregnancy.” After all, my right to “bodily autonomy” should come before my “duties” to society, yes? This argument boils down to biology: the fact is, from fertilization onwards, we’re dealing with two bodies – the bodies of two human beings. That this practice is harmful to society is true, but more importantly, it is fatal to a large number of human beings.
The idea of sex-selective abortion on a large scale is uncomfortable. I suggest that many who accept abortion in general would have a problem with this practice. But if the reasons listed above justify abortion, then there can be no objection to sex-selective abortion, even if it’s bad for society. Those supposed justifications for abortion imply something that simply isn’t true. It is reasonable to say, then, that there must be (indeed, there is) some problem with those justifications.
For an in-depth look at the pro-life argument against abortion (addressing the “pro-choice” arguments above, and many more), visit http://caseforlife.com/ or read the articles in the section “The Case Against Abortion” at www.abort73.com.
Posted by ypyvicepresident 
