Sex-Selective Abortion Follow-up
I recently posted on the topic of sex-selective abortion. After seeing an article on LifeSiteNews on the recent Congressional vote on the sex-selective abortion bill, I felt a little bit of a follow-up was in order. LSN’s Steve Mosher writes:
[T]he vote on PreNDA has exposed dozens of Democrats, along with a handful of pro-abortion Republicans, as pro-abortion extremists. After all, what else are we to call those who favor abortions performed for the sole purpose of eliminating unborn baby girls because of their sex?
Call me the perpetual nay-sayer if you will, but I find this entire statement to be flawed from top to bottom.
First, unless it is really justifiable, I really dislike throwing around the word “extremist.” Whether we like it or not, roughly half of Americans support the abortions status quo and even more believe it should be legal in certain circumstances deemed sufficiently sympathetic. It can hardly be considered “extremist” to simply vote pro-choice, and labeling it as such is really a distortion. Labeling things that are mainstream and well-precedented (which pro-choice politics are), if not reasonable (which they aren’t), as “extremist” is what radical leftists specialize in, because truth is meaningless to them. We can be and ought to be better.
Secondly, I simply do not believe that any of the Democrats or Republicans who voted against the legislation “favor” the elimination of girls through abortion. Frankly I would have been absolutely shocked had they voted in support of it, and I suspect the same is true of LSN’s writers and editors. If you are pro-choice, you are going to favor choice. If you’ve already decided that unborn children aren’t really human beings, or even more perversely and illogically, that they are but that it is still justifiable to kill them, what difference does it make what sex they are? And isn’t bad enough that they favor the elimination of human beings through abortion? Does this really make them worse than they already are?
I get the point of this legislation: force the Dems to make a difficult choice. But then there’s the dirty part of it I don’t like: pretend that the protection of unborn females was the sole motivation behind the legislation, and that there was nothing political about it in the least. And then when the Dems do exactly what we expect them to do, act appalled and speak of radicalism, extremism, etc. It strikes me as dishonorable. I also have to object to even proposing that the law could actually do something to prevent people from obtaining a legal service for an illegal reason that can only be known through what amounts to the honor system.
I said it before, and I will say it again: all reasons for abortion are absolutely equal in their moral evil. Mess with that equation even in the slightest, and I believe the credibility of the pro-life position takes a serious hit. I don’t oppose opportunistic measures such as these simply because I see them as wrong “in themselves”; I firmly believe that you cannot pursue a moral and just end – such as the elimination of abortion – with anything less than the highest level of integrity and honor.
In closing, I really don’t want to insult people who have likely done a lot more than me in the real world to oppose abortion and save lives, and I don’t attribute bad motives to the vast majority of them. But the historian, philosopher and strategist in me can’t remain silent. And finally, this has nothing to do with slavish conformity to the modern liberal rules of political engagement, which are hypocritical and absurd. I endorse all sorts of strategies against abortion that many would disregard as “extremist” from a modern liberal point of view.