Lila Rose's group, Live Action, has produced a video, documenting an example of a Planned Parenthood worker being willing to abort a female baby because of her gender.
Here's an example of criticism from the other side. Their claim is that the charges are "trumped up", implying that they are false. That is false. One might say that the implication that the practice is widespread would be exaggerated. That would be difficult to prove, but I suspect that would be correct-- not necessarily because PP wouldn't be willing to render such "services", but because they would not be requested often in a Christian/post-Christian society. (Of course, there was plenty of exaggeration and "propaganda" in the PP response, but I appreciate their direct, verbal condemnation of sex-selective abortion. Whether that's backed up by action or desire for legislation is, of course, another matter. To note, PP has said that it will not still do sex-selective abortion, so...)
The extent to which this form of eugenics occurs in India and China is relatively well-known. The extent to which it occurs in the U.S. is smaller but significantly presumably growing. Perversely, technological advances have been responsible for this allowing this moral decline to bear "fruit". (The House will soon vote on legislation related to this practice. The
effort is symbolic-- both in the sense that it will not even be debated
by the Democratic Senate and it would be difficult to enforce in
practice.)
You can say that you care about women. You can even be anti-science and hold the position that current adult women are better off with abortion services. But it becomes even more difficult to defend abortion when it is so clearly a war on future women.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home