Posts Tagged ‘girls’

Sex Selected Abortions

Posted by Troy on 30th May 2012 in Current Events, Political

For a longer discussion on the topic of abortion, see the following link to an earlier rant.

http://swampfoxpress.com/political/fake-libertarian-ron-paul-and-abortion/

Now Congress is trying to pass a law which will make it illegal to choose to have an abortion based only on the sex of the baby.  First of all, let’s just go ahead and admit that this law is going to be found unconstitutional.  The act is protected by the Constitution per Roe vs. Wade.  Love it or Hate it, that’s the way it is, people.

The interesting thing is that this makes everyone involved hypocrites.  It’s rather spectacular.

For Democrats, who have been claiming that there is a war on women by Republicans, they have to take a pro-China stance and say that being a girl is a crime punishable by death.   They have to simultaneously condemn that this is happening and say that it’s the right of the woman to have the abortion anyway.  The unspoken side of this argument is that they find sex selected abortions abhorrent, but all other abortions are cool.  Query, what if it was a sex selected abortion because it was a boy?  Would that be okay?  Is it abhorrent to choose to have an abortion over sex in either direction, but it’s cool for any other reason?  This is like coming across two puppies in the pound, one cute, one ugly.  According to the Democrats, you should have both put down instead of killing one and adopting the other on mere physical attractiveness.

For the Republicans, passing this law makes the odd argument that abortions for any reason other than sex selection is okay.  Of course, their position is a little more consistent than that of Democrats.  At least Republicans are against any abortions (with few exceptions such as perhaps incest, rape, or endangerment to the life of the mother).  Their position to try to stop a certain kind of abortion is at least trying to stop some abortions.  However, there is an unintended consequence that they probably do not realize.  Suppose a woman wants a son but having a child would be a great hardship.  She is pregnant, and she wants to have an abortion unless it is a son.  The doctor tells her that he cannot tell her if it is a boy or a girl and do the abortion.  Not willing to take the risk, she has the abortion without finding out the sex.  It turns out the fetus was actually a boy that would have lived had she had been told it was a boy.  Oooooops.  So, the Republican take is that you have to either take both puppies or kill both puppies, but not one or the other.

This law is ridiculous because it assumes that people are stupid.  Let’s take the woman in the Republican example.  She goes to a clinic, and the doctor says he cannot tell her the sex.  Don’t you think that she will figure out that she can go to a different doctor, have a sonogram, find out the sex, and then go to the abortion clinic and have an abortion anyway?

Long Live the Constitution!