The war on women continues

Democrats kill bill banning selective-sex abortions. The mothers killing their fetus are killing girls, not boys, yet the Democrats see nothing wrong with the practice. Yes, of course this is just a political ploy to embarrass Democrats, but it’s embarrassing only because it brings into the spotlight the exact implications of the Democrat’s “if it breeds it bleeds” philosophy.

Would they object if the don’wannabemomies were offing boys? Who knows, but this does tend to undercut the war on women meme. I mean, Romney may (arguably) want to pay them less but he doesn’t want to kill them. At least he doesn’t want to do that.

16 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

16 responses to “The war on women continues

  1. ABW

    I don’t think it is true in this country that there is a majority of abortions of girls over boys. Do you have statistics for that?

    I would argue the opposite here, as there are a lot more genetic diseases that show up in boys and not girls (due to weak x chromosome, etc.), not to mention autism. Lots of moms are in their 40s these days and all of the ones I know prefer girls for this reason and others (such as the fact that a “daughter is a daughter for the rest of her life” ; – )) )

    We all recognize that it is sadly true that sons are preferred worldwide – and notorious in China, etc. But I think it is misleading to imply that a verdict in the U.S. protecting a mother’s right to choose discrimminates against girls in this country.

  2. Anonymous

    Hey you old white man Chauvenist pig! It’s our bodies and our right to kill future women!

  3. Anonymous

    “The mothers killing their fetus are killing girls, not boys…”

    I don’t know what your stance on abortion is, CF, nor do I particularly care, but the above quote of yours (faulty grammar aside) makes it sound like you are strongly anti-abortion. But wouldn’t the libertarian view lean toward pro-choice?

    Please explain.

    • I’m put off by the insistence of pro-abortionists that there is just one life – the mother’s – involved. We may as a society have decided that abortion is a proper means of disposing of unwanted life but we should, I think, acknowledge that there’s more going on here than sanding off a callous. Opposing the cutting up an 8-month-old fetus is a logical position for anyone who recognizes individual rights, libertarian or not.

  4. Peg

    I’m pro-choice – early in a pregnancy. If a woman wants an abortion in her first trimester, she should be able to obtain one. Whether the reason is she wants a boy instead of a girl (or vice versa), or she’s too young or too old to have a baby, too poor, not in love with the father, etc., etc. – that should be up to her. Yet, once the embryo has become more developed, she loses the rights of choice that she had early on. Then – serious threats to her own health or the inability of the fetus to live outside the womb should be the only reasons for abortion.

    Plus – I hate laws that essentially cannot be enforced. If they pass a law stating that you cannot have an abortion for sex selection, then who would be dumb enough to say that was their reason, instead of something else legal? Well; OK – some would be dumb enough, but most would work it out….

  5. Somewhere along the line, it’s a baby, a person, that’s aborted, not a blob of cells. Exactly where that line is, I’m don’t know. But a baby can clearly be seen in ultrasounds (for example) by 12 weeks, perhaps even much earlier.

  6. dogwalker

    Goodness! Yeah, I’d love some statistics or something. Is gender selection really that much of an issue in this country that Congress woud take time away from important stuff to put this bill forward? I’m wondering whether this is a back door way to ban abortion altogether.

    • No, it’s just election year politics. China’s single-child policy has been causing many couples to abort their child if it’s a girl and there’s some anecdotal evidence that some Chinese bring that practice here when they immigrate. No numbers I’ve seen that would cause me to believe it’s actually happening (and I agree with Peg that anyone who chose to do that would simply come up with a legal reason for her doctor0 but it’s a fun way to, as i said, force the democrats to face the logical implications of their pro-abortion stance. It’s disappointing that neither party shows any capability of addressing the budget, unemployment or taxation but that seems to be the sorry state of politics today.

  7. Libertarian Advocate

    Anonymous @ 11:55 PM: Actually, strict libertarianism frowns deeply on the killing of human beings, whether in the womb or in the electric chair, that said, here is the LP’s stated position:

    1.4 Abortion
    Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

  8. Nana

    holy moly. more misinformation. amazing column I can’t seem to resist reading. it keeps me abreast of the misinformation mania. Libertarrian Advocate has it right for sure. The hell with the stats, although you’ve got them sooooooo wrong.

  9. NRA

    The point: It’s the power to detect gender that leads to the power to use gender bias in indicating abortion. Matters not which gender is preferred. Or if the kid is XX, XY or XYY.

    Until now the fig leaf of the child’s gender “anonymity” permitted the mother to claim personal need rather than preference. Even the existence of “disease” can be (wrongly) interpreted as “harm” to the mother.

    The whole point of the existence of the gender-selection argument exposes the fact that modern abortion has reduced humanity to a matter of aesthetic convenience. Using “women” as the “victim” here is an hilarious head-fake, but it’s our moral order on the line.

    Then again, only progressives – by definition – abort their kids.

    For me, that’s like bacon… at half-price.

  10. Peg

    “Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.”

    I know people on the left who think that abortion is OK 2 days prior to scheduled delivery. Hell; I know some who have written academic papers on “after-birth” abortion – seriously!!

    The sad fact is that we somehow, as a society, have to come to some rules and laws about when abortion is and is not legal. We all know that some think after the moment of conception, it should not be legal. Far more, however, do think that early in a pregnancy, abortion should be allowed. I must admit, however, I’d have a very tough time with a law that says women can have an abortion for any reason whatsoever throughout an entire pregnancy. And – I do think that I have company there, for good reason.

  11. Libertarian Advocate

    Peg: Celebrated NYC Mayor Ed Koch called Partial Birth abortion what it is – legalized murder. I doubt the city’s current mayor holds the same view.

  12. dogwalker

    Somehow I was caught off guard when the whole debate about partial-birth came up. I had thought the limit was something like 4 months? Or maybe it was at one point, or in some places. And certainly when there is reasonable expectation of viability, how could anybody consider it?