January 18, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - I’m amazed that people who are so passionate about saving women from botched abortions can be so happy to turn a blind eye when women are targeted for abortion.
Canada’s media elites and legal-abortion advocates are up in arms this week after a call to combat female feticide in the Asian population by the editor of the Canadian Medical Association Journal. Dr. Rajendra Kale asked Monday for the country to prohibit disclosing a child’s sex until 30 weeks gestation, when, he said, “an unquestioned abortion is all but impossible.”
You would think we could find wide support for an outright ban on sex-selection rather than this kind of politically-correct proposal that withholds useful information from parents.
But according to Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, such a restriction would be a “dangerous road to go down” because “women have the right to decide” even if we disagree with their reasons.
Click “like” if you want to end abortion!
Arthur clearly recognizes the simple fact that if we move to restrict sex-selective abortions, the whole edifice of “choice” crumbles along with it. If we grant the unborn protections based on sex, there will be no justification for denying them protections based on other categories for non-discrimination, like disability.
No more aborting Down syndrome babies, and ultimately no more abortions for rape or incest. That’s just discrimination based on the circumstances of conception.
“If you bestow human rights on some fetuses, how do you justify not bestowing them on all? Why protect a fetus at risk of termination because of its gender, but not a disability?” asked National Post columnist Chris Selley on Wednesday.
The existence of sex-selective abortions shoots a hole right through “pro-choice” rhetoric about women’s rights. Dr. Kale calls it “discrimination against women in its most extreme form.”
How can we claim that abortion is necessary to women’s rights when it allows for the destruction of women? We shouldn’t forget that girls die from abortion even when the motivating factor isn’t her sex.
Legal-abortion advocates say they don’t like sex-selection abortions, but argue that the solution is to change cultural attitudes rather than withhold information from expecting mothers.
But you’ve got to wonder how serious they are about protecting these endangered girls. Transforming deep-seated cultural stigmas is a long and ethereal process, and they seem content to allow the massacre to continue unabated in the mean time.
So-called “pro-woman” groups like the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists oppose any restrictions on sex-selective abortions because they know it would be logically inconsistent to accept anything but total, unfettered access to abortion.
They know that granting the smallest of protections for the unborn, like a ban on coercive abortions, opens the door to total protection.
And so it should.
Patrick Craine is Canadian Bureau Chief for LifeSiteNews.com and the president of Campaign Life Coalition NS. He lives with his wife and two children in Nova Scotia.