Anyone paying attention in Canada knows that sex-selective abortions are commonplace amongst some groups in our country. The overwhelming percentage of Canadians who are against such gendercide should thus be outraged at the views of a group of hardcore pro-abortionists in Britain, along with their supporters in the Media Party:
It doesn’t matter whether what’s growing inside you is liable to end up as a man or a woman. What matters is whether the person it’s growing inside – the person who is going to have to deliver the resulting baby, at not inconsiderable personal peril – actually wants to be pregnant and give birth to this child. In a world where it’s possible to end a pregnancy safely and legally, it seems like rank brutality to force anyone to carry to term against her will.
And as far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t matter why any woman wants to end her pregnancy. As the conscious and legally competent entity in the conception set-up, it’s the woman’s say that counts, and even the most terrible reason for having an abortion holds more sway than the best imaginable reason for compelling a woman to carry to term.
To those Genocidists steeped in the need to eliminate all the
“underachiever overpopulation” marring what should be their Gaia
world’s version of the Garden of Eden, Gendercide is the half loaf
that is better than none. Once the proper laws to control who is
permitted to reproduce are finally put in place, it won’t matter.
Don’t let your daughters date or marry men from cultures that kill their girls.
Gotta love multiculturalism…
And still they refuse to acknowledge that some women are forced to abort female children, babies.
Yup abusive misogynistic men win again, the “see no evil evah with abortion crowd” are so worried about their rights, that they are ready to throw abused women under the bus.
You know why? Because it’s not about women’s rights, it’s not about women’s freedom from abuse or control over each individuals own body. It’s about THIER person rights, as long as they can have those, forget every other woman on the planet.
Modern feminists are an embarrassment to humanity. Dinosaurs that we are waiting to die off.
I wonder how many Canadian abortion clinics keep a pair of scissors handy during abortions?
So, to follow this compelling, pellucidly-penned argument, if a woman wanted an abortion because, say, she felt bloated every now and then, plus her feet had got all swolled up, this would trump that slattern against-all-odds pushing out some guy-girl destined to cure HIV/AIDS one day? You have to admit, it’s a poser.
Darwin award leading to EXTINCTION.
Yeah it’s a sad situation…..the PRC (China) had ta put their foot down, HARD, on gender selective abortions ()and infanticide)….that coupled with their “1 child” law was resulting in no little girls.
I’m not leftist, I’m libertarian. I think abortion is damned ugly, but I also agree with the quoted statement in terms of womens’ rights. I disagree that abortions are safe, much evidence to the contrary. Ugly situation no matter how you look at it.
I am pro choice, but when people engage in unprotected sex then the choice has already been made.
Terminating a pregnancy by abortion is murder, in my opinion.
And we seem to murder about 100,000 a year in Canada, at taxpayers’ expense.
About what Assad has done in Syria recently.
Canadians should be outraged? Over something that really matters?
Now that’s funny!
Canadians only get outraged when something affects their leisure activities – like texting fees, or cable TV rate hikes. Beer and circuses indeed.
The zombie horde leftists can never give you a coherent answer when you challenge the overt hypocrisy of their dogma, they have had a complete MSM lobotomy and are incapable of reasoned thought just herd-conditioned detached gainsaying – but I do get a guffaw out of watching the higher functioning leftards squirm under the weight of dogmatic hypocrisy – at least they have a remnant of reason and moral compass left in them – unlike the gate keepers of leftoid political correctness who have sold out their soul/humanity to their errant ideology – they can’t be reached at all – the blatant fallacies of their dogmas are invisible to them or deemed nonexistent – they suffer from a severe denial complex and amoral myopia. Try to avoid eye contact or they will pounce on you spewing mindless circular talking points.
They kill children for the children.
I wonder what they figure will happen these hags when the population is mostly male because of sex selection?
That they will get more freedom under a male dominated by population culture?
I don’t think so.
As with Muslim immigration, its slow suicide for Individual rights for Women.
The desecration of their wombs for momentary gain. That in the end will en in chains.
Sad but VERY true. 🙁
I’ll never forget the enormous outrage over Rogers reverse billing in 1996. I was working in Mexico City at the time, and will never forget the 3 – 4 year old children juggling at every stoplight on the way to the airport. When I returned to Vancouver and visited some friends, they insisted on ranting about the Rogers “scandal” for an hour. That was quite the juxtaposition!
Too true Occam but then again many libertarians fit into the same category when they choose the ‘rights’ of the mother over the LIFE of the child.
There is selfishness in a nutshell and we will reap the effects of it.
I will never call a pro-abortion person “pro-choice” (see article).
What this article makes abundantly clear is that the intersection of logic and feminism results in an empty set. The only good thing I can see about sex-selective abortions is that the net result will be far fewer moonbats, such as the author of the article, in existence.
One of the frequent themes elaborated by feminists is their fight against “violence against women”. They are quite ready to disarm all American males and assume automatic guilt of a male in any domestic dispute. Suddenly, then one is dealing with TROP, it’s necessary for a women to have a sex selective abortion in order to prevent violence against her by her husband. To me a logical response would be to give a free .357 magnum revolver to every muslim woman carrying a female infant in order to deal with potential 7th century barbarism. Obviously the mere destruction of a “piece of tissue” is the solution to potential violence which is totally contrary to the rules of any civilized society.
The natural sex ratio, in the absence of 7th century barbarians having access to ultrasound machines, is a slight excess of males over females. If TROP were to have its way, then there would be no females born and one would have a very large population of ignorant horny males who would soon get bored with the local livestock and each other. The obvious effect of sex-selective abortions (curiously how only female fetuses get aborted) would be an increase in violence and marked increase in rape. Obviously looking that far into the future is far beyond the very limited intellectual capacities of feminists who also assume that their cetacean body structure will protect them from rape. Have a high enough proportion of young islamic males and no female is safe.
One of the reasons for the higher natural percentage of male births is that males tend to be more likely to die during infancy, but also males tend to die of violence far more frequently than females. One of the most common things males fight over is who has the right to impregnate a female. The greater the competition of males for females, the higher the death toll will be. If this was limited to members of TROP then one could say “abort away”, but likely there would be a huge spillover effect of the violence as “peaceable” members of TROP become uncharacteristically violent when they come in contact with a non TROP individual.
Current western society has evolved to a point where the vast majority of males will find a female to bond with. Given that the primitive 7th century barbarians with access to modern ultrasound have a preference for female harems, there’s obviously a conflict that will occur. Logic is not a strong point of TROP as well and the only way in which a devout peaceable member of TROP will be able to accumulate his female harem would be by killing enough males regionally to create a local female surplus. Alternatively, he could forcibly abduct non-TROP females into his harem. This would put populations who don’t have the same propensities to female in-utero infanticide as TROP at considerable risk.
Anyone whose future time cone extends beyond their nose would obviously notice that female selective abortion is evil. The social effects of such a policy are only positive if one needs to kill off a lot of the excess males by invading a neighboring country and promising the survivors they can grab any woman they find there. In the absence of such a hypothetical need for population imbalance, any society concerned with its survival would criminalize sex-selective abortion. One way of doing so would be to have any female belonging to one of the primitive branches of humanity who aborted a female fetus to have the next two pregnancies aborted automatically including partial birth abortion if they tried to hide another pregnancy. Alternatively, one could have a policy of post-natal abortion up to the age of 25 for male children from primitive immigrant groups should they deviate significantly from western social norms.
Given that feminists defer to cultural values that emphasize misogyny, western white males should be far more aggressive in standing up for their cultural values which at lest have the benefit of 1300 years of refinement over the cultural values that feminists automatically defer to. It may be that all one has to do is to act like a male instead of a wimpy metrosexual to intimidate a feminist.
The British authors have a point, and Canadian liberals and judges (but I repeat myself), twist themselves into pretzels trying to determine “good reasons” for abortions as opposed to “bad reasons”; sort of “abortions we like” versus “abortions we don’t like”. That describe pretty well the state of Canadian jurisprudence generally.
I would caution pro-life Canadians not to buy into a special prohibition on “gender-cide”.
Joe I think you will find that most Libertarians (myself included) will recognize the unborn child’s right to be protected from harm when it becomes a citizen – the question is when is this – at conception? 1 month?, 2 months? We know for a fact that aborting a child which is capable of surviving outside the womb is infanticide to any sense of morality, so ALL these late or full term abortions amount to state sanctioned murder – but just when does the mother’s rights give way to the child’s? I think we should defund abortion because so many are opposed to it and have a right to not be forced to take part in funding something they consider morally wrong – however I believe the solution lies with the medical profession who seem to be more than willing to compromise morality for a quick buck. If doctors were elt liable for killing children capable of living outside the womb that would be a start in making society as a whole viewing infanticide as a form of birth control.
[Occam]
> have a right to not be forced to take part in funding something they consider morally wrong
No matter that people have these rights, the majority (at the very least, the majority of politicians) seems hell-bent on removing them.
However, there’s an interesting counter-argument to this point. Suppose that people were given a tick-box on their tax forms that said “I decline to fund abortion in any form”. The amount of government funding that goes to abortion is relatively so small, that even if 99% of the tax-paying population checked that box, there would still be enough money to fully fund abortion. The powers that be would simply say they’re directing that money from the 1% to abortion. Nothing would change.
Thus, I don’t think that you can say everyone “takes part in” funding abortion, much like not everyone “takes part in” paying subsidies to corporate welfare projects, or any other questionable or controversial issue. We are compelled by law to pay taxes; very little moral culpability lies with the coerced taxpayer. Where that culpability *does* lie is a whole other question…